The Bloomsbury Handbook of The Internationalization of Higher Education in The Global South 9781350139244, 9781350139275, 9781350139251

Citation preview

THE BLOOMSBURY HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

i

Also available from Bloomsbury The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning Edited by Douglas Bourn The Bloomsbury Handbook of Theory in Comparative and International Education Edited by Tavis D. Jules, Robin Shields and Matthew A.M. Thomas The Bloomsbury Handbook of Religious Education in the Global South Edited by Yonah H. Matemba and Bruce Collet

ii

THE BLOOMSBURY HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

Edited by Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Hans de Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang, and Wondwosen Tamrat

iii

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2021 Copyright © Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Hans de Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang, Wondwosen Tamrat, and contributors, 2021 Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Hans de Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang, and Wondwosen Tamrat have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editors of this work. Cover design: Charlotte James Cover image © NiseriN / iStock All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Thondhlana, Juliet, editor. Title: The Bloomsbury handbook of the internationalization of higher education in the global South / edited by Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Hans de Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang, and Wondwosen Tamrat. Other titles: Handbook of the internationalization of higher education in the global South Description: London ; New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020036918 (print) | LCCN 2020036919 (ebook) | ISBN 9781350139244 (hardback) | ISBN 9781350139251 (ebook) | ISBN 9781350139268 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Education, Higher–Developing countries. | Education and globalization–Developing countries. Classification: LCC LC2610 .B56 2021 (print) | LCC LC2610 (ebook) | DDC 378.009172/4—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020036918 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020036919 ISBN: HB: 978-1-3501-3924-4 ePDF: 978-1-3501-3925-1 eBook: 978-1-3501-3926-8 Series: Bloomsbury Handbooks Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters. iv

CONTENTS

L IST OF F IGURES

ix

L IST OF T ABLES

xii

1

Introduction: Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South: Setting the Scene Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn C. Garwe, and Hans de Wit

1

Thematic Chapters 2

3

Internationalization in Higher Education: The Challenging Road from a Western Paradigm to a Global and Inclusive Concept Hans de Wit International Mapping of National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs) Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, Daniela Cra˘ciun, Georgiana Mihut, and Ayenachew Woldegiyorgis

23

29

Section I: Asia Pacific 4

Introduction to Asia Pacific Chapters Futao Huang and Anthony R. Welch

5

Internationalization in China’s Higher Education: Trends, Achievements, and Challenges Xiao Han and Wenqin Shen

6

Internationalization of Japan’s Higher Education Futao Huang

7

Internationalization of Korean Higher Education (1945–2018): A Success Story Sunwoong Kim

8

Internationalization as a Mechanism of Higher Education Modernization in Kazakhstan Aliya Kuzhabekova

41

48

64

79

100

v

vi

9

CONTENTS

The Rhetoric and Reality of Malaysian Higher Education Internationalization Policy and Its Strategic Initiatives Norzaini Azman and Chang Da Wan

115

10 Internationalization of Indian Higher Education: Aligning with the Mission of Knowledge Enhancement Julie Vardhan

135

11 Conclusion: The Shift to the East, and the Changing Face of Internationalization Anthony R. Welch

148

Section II: Latin America and the Caribbean 12 Introduction: Higher Education, Internationalization, and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila

163

13 Internationalization of Higher Education in Brazil Renée Zicman

182

14 Internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean Annette Insanally and Luz Inmaculada Madera

197

15 Internationalization of Chilean Higher Education: Research, Innovation, and Human Capital Formation in a Globalized Era Javier González, Andrés Bernasconi, and Francisca Puyol

220

16 Colombian Higher Education Internationalization and Social Sustainable Development: From Meaning to Practice Giovanni Anzola-Pardo

244

17 Internationalization of Higher Education in Mexico: An Unfinished Agenda Francisco Marmolejo 18 Conclusion: Latin America and the Caribbean Internationalization Process: Main Achievements and Shortcomings Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila

264

279

Section III: North Africa and the Middle East 19 Introduction to MENA Chapters Wondwosen Tamrat 20 Internationalization of Higher Education in the GCC Region: Emerging Patterns and Challenges Wondwosen Tamrat

299

311

CONTENTS

21 Higher Education in Jordan: At the Confluence of Nationalization and Internationalization Aref Al Attari 22 Internationalization and Globalization in Libyan Higher Education Salem Melood Abodher

vii

327

346

23 Internationalization of Higher Education in Morocco: Current Processes, Practices, and Challenges Abdellah Benahnia

364

24 Internationalization of Higher Education in Egypt: Modalities and Policy Provisions Teklu Abate Bekele and Bola Ibrahim

382

25 The Internationalization of Higher Education in Tunisia: Bridging Gaps and Cross-border Cooperation Mohamed Salah Harzallah

403

26 Internationalization of Higher Education in Palestine Kamel Mansi 27 Conclusion: Enhancing Outcomes through Internationalization: An Overview of the Higher Education Sector in the MENA Region Julie Vardhan

424

443

Section IV: Sub-Saharan Africa 28 Introduction: Internationalization of Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa Evelyn C. Garwe and Juliet Thondhlana 29 Internationalization of Higher Education in Ethiopia: From a Fragmented Dispensation to a Cohesive Path Wondwosen Tamrat

461

470

30 Two Decades of Internationalizing Higher Education in South Africa Chika T. Sehoole and Rakgadi Phatlane

493

31 Internationalization of Higher Education in Zimbabwe Evelyn C. Garwe, Juliet Thondhlana, and Simon McGrath

510

32 Internationalizing Higher Education: An Exploratory Analysis of Policy Frameworks, Challenges, and Opportunities Gifty Oforiwaa Gyamera 33 Accounting for Internationalization in Kenya’s Higher Education System Ibrahim Ogachi Oanda

530

550

viii

34 The Internationalization of Higher Education in Nigeria Olusola Bandele Oyewole 35 Conclusion: The State of Internationalization of Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa Hadiza Kere Abdulrahman, Evelyn C. Garwe, Juliet Thondhlana, and Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni

CONTENTS

571

585

36 Salient Issues in the Internationalization of Higher Education in The Global South: Concluding Observations Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn C. Garwe, and Hans de Wit

596

N OTES ON C ONTRIBUTORS

610

I NDEX

619

FIGURES

CHAPTER ONE 1.1

Top ten fastest growing economies in the world

13

CHAPTER FIVE 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Number of newly approved TNHE activities Institutional strategy for internationalization Percentage of teachers with an international PhD degree at universities in Projects 985 and 211 and in other HEIs Percentage of English-taught curricula at universities in Projects 985 and 211 and in other HEIs

51 54 55 56

CHAPTER SIX 6.1 6.2 6.3

Changes in the ranking of Japanese universities in 2004–2014 Trends in number of international students Changes in the proportion of full-time international faculty at Japanese universities

69 72 73

CHAPTER SEVEN 7.1

Higher education eco-system

82

CHAPTER NINE 9.1 9.2 9.3

Student enrollment in Malaysian higher education institutions International academic staff in Malaysian higher education institutions International student enrollment in public and private higher education institutions

116 116 119

CHAPTER TEN 10.1 Student enrolment in the higher education sector 10.2 Foreign student distribution by top ten countries in India

137 141

CHAPTER FIFTEEN 15.1 Student mobility in Chile: Inbound by country of origin 15.2 Student mobility in Chile: Outbound by country of destination

224 226 ix

x

LIST OF FIGURES

15.3 Expenditure in R & D as percentage of GDP (2017) 15.4 Investment in R & D when countries had the same GDP per capita (US$17,000) 15.5 Total researchers (FTE) per thousand total employees (2017). Countries with current similar GDP per capita 15.6 International collaboration in research (2018) 15.7 New international scholarships awarded per year

227 228 228 229 234

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN 17.1 Internationalization of higher education in Mexico. Stages of development

271

CHAPTER TWENTY 20.1 Educational participation at all levels in GCC

314

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO 22.1 Structure of the education system in Libya

349

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5

Number of inbound international students in select Arab countries in 2016 Number of international students in Egypt across years Sources of international students in Egypt in 2016 Number of outbound international students in the Arab states in 2017 Destinations of degree-seeking Egyptian students abroad in 2016

390 390 391 392 392

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE 25.1 Erasmus+ capacity building higher education projects 2015–2017

409

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX 26.1 Students in Palestinian universities, 1995–2016 26.2 Students graduated from the Palestinian universities, 1995–2010

428 429

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN 27.1 Gross enrollment ratio—MENA 27.2 Employment to population ratio (2019) 27.3 Number of trademarks and scientific and technical journal articles in MENA (2016) 27.4 International mobility of students from some MENA countries.

446 448 449 452

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT 28.1 Positioning of SSA in the African continent

462

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE 29.1 Foreign students in Ethiopian HEIs by field of studies (2015–16) 29.2 Foreign staff in Ethiopian HEIs (2002/03–2017/18)

477 479

CHAPTER THIRTY 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5

Students enrolled in South African universities from the rest of the world Enrollment of students from other African countries but not the SADC Students from the SADC region excluding South Africa Foreign students who did not specify their country of origin Comparative analysis of international students versus South African students 30.6 Comparative analysis of the origin of students in South African universities by numbers 30.7 Comparative analysis of the percentages of students’ origins in South African universities

500 502 503 504 505 506 506

CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE 31.1 IHE theory of change 31.2 Participants at the all-stakeholder workshop, inclusive of Minister and Permanent Secretary 31.3 Registrars at a taskforce meeting at the Chinhoyi University Hotel

521 523 524

TABLES

CHAPTER THREE 3.1

Mapping national internationalization strategies

34

CHAPTER SIX 6.1

Change in the number and proportion of international students in Japanese universities

72

CHAPTER SEVEN 7.1 7.2 7.3

Trends in GDP per capita (current USD) and enrollments (in thousands) Trend of degree-seeking foreign students (2000–2018) Number of foreign students by country and purpose (2018)

83 91 91

CHAPTER NINE 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

Relevant entry point project for education hub Top 10 sending countries (2016–2018) Summary of Malaysia’s Global Reach programmes Comparative review of employment opportunities among five countries

118 120 121 129

CHAPTER TEN 10.1 Major university types and number of universities

139

CHAPTER ELEVEN 11.1 Japan, origin of international students 11.2 Australia’s collaborative publications and citations 2000–2011, by country

151 154

CHAPTER FOURTEEN 14.1 Participants HEIs, country, and type

202

CHAPTER FIFTEEN 15.1 THE World international ranking—Latin America international outlook 15.2 Outbound and inbound students 15.3 CONICYT: Funding targeted to internationalization xii

223 225 231

LIST OF TABLES

15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.9

xiii

International cooperation: Quality assurance system Cross country comparison of program size Average BCP benefits THE ranking—International outlook for Chilean universities QS ranking—International research network Institutional internationalization strategies

232 233 236 239 239 240

CHAPTER SIXTEEN 16.1 The IHE: National ideological context and trends: an overview

251

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN 17.1 Main characteristics of the Mexican higher education system by subsystem

266

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6

LAC higher education access, 2018 LAC percentage of faculty with a doctoral degree, 2017 Outbound and inbound mobility ratios by regions, 2017 LAC international outbound and inbound mobility ratios, 2017 LAC knowledge production, 2018 LAC International collaboration in research

280 282 288 288 290 290

CHAPTER TWENTY 20.1 Outbound and inbound mobility in the GCC region

317

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4

Universities in Jordan 2019 Internationalization in the official literature of some Jordanian universities Higher education in Jordan: Number of universities, students, and staff Expatriate students by nationality

331 335 336 337

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6

Public universities in Libya (2019) Private universities in Libya (2019) Table of distinctions between globalization and internationalization Table of implications of globalization for internationalization Number of Libyan students studying abroad at the state’s expense (2009) Table of agreements between Libyan universities and European universities

349 350 350 351 358 359

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE 25.1 Research projects in Tunisia

416

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX 26.1 Projects funded by the European Commission in the West Bank and Gaza Strip 26.2 Leadership 26.3 Policy and strategy 26.4 People 26.5 Partnership and resources 26.6 Processes 26.7 People results

433 435 436 437 438 438 438

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT 28.1 Examples of the colonial origins of higher education in SSA

463

CHAPTER THIRTY 30.1 Origins of international staff in South African universities in 2000, 2005, 2010 30.2 Permanent academic staff in South African universities 30.3 Total enrollments of international students from continents other than Africa 30.4 Number of students from Africa, who are not from the SADC region 30.5 Enrollments in South African universities from the SADC region, excluding South Africa 30.6 Foreign students in South African universities who did not mention their countries of origin 30.7 Comparative analysis of the numbers of international students and South African students

499 499 500 501 502 504 505

CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE 31.1 Internationalization of higher education understandings, strategies, and rationales

517

CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE 33.1 Summary of internationalization vision and strategies of four large public universities in Kenya 33.2 Support from development partners to university education in Kenya, 2014 33.3 University of Nairobi; research, publication and production status 2007/08–2011/12 33.4 Important sources of innovation for Kenyan Firms, 2008–2011 33.5 Academic staff by qualification and university category

558 561 563 564 565

CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR 34.1 Outlook of tertiary institutions in Nigeria

572

CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX 36.1 Mapping national internationalization strategies for the Global South

600

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South: Setting the Scene JULIET THONDHLANA , EVELYN C. GARWE , AND HANS DE WIT

RATIONALE This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the chapters to follow. This edited handbook, compiled by a unique team of established and emerging experts, gives a comprehensive account of internationalization of higher education (IHE) in the Global South, including some virgin contexts not commonly found in the literature. It responds to the urgent and emerging call for solutions on sustainable internationalization of higher education (IHE) that go beyond the traditional Western models (e.g., de Wit, Gacel-Ávila, Jones, and Jooste, 2017; Proctor and Rumbley, 2018). Internationalization per se is not a completely new concept, but as a strategic dimension (De Wit, 1995, 2015; Delgado-Márquez, Hurtado-Torres, and Bondar, 2011; Vavrus and Pekol, 2015) it has taken the higher education fraternity by storm while gaining recognition as a critical tool for fostering sustainable national and international development through producing quality globally competent human capital (Hunter et al., 2006). Internationalization has varying socio-economic, cultural, and technological impacts depending on context (Maringe, Foskett, and Woodfield, 2013), as well as political, economic, social-cultural, and academic rationales (de Wit, 2002). This way it has effectively transformed its conceptual framework, scope, magnitude, and significance, and redefined international relationships (Alemu, 2014). Accordingly, the ability of a higher education institution (HEI) to internationalize its campuses, curriculum, and activities has become a key measure of the institution’s success and competitiveness locally and globally (Green and Schoenberg, 2006). Within the context of the Global South, it can be said that this supposedly “new” IHE concept is in actual fact as old as its dominant higher education systems. “International” characteristics have always been evident in higher education since the Middle Ages (de Wit, 2002; Zeleza, 2005) in terms of intellectual mobility and its local genesis, and one of the key characteristics has been the export of higher education systems from the North to the colonies in the South. As a result, the tension or duality between local and international is even more evident in nations that have a history of colonialism, some of which are subjects of study in the handbook. In response to this tension, De Wit (2013) argues that while it is true that universities have always been international, operating within a broader 1

2

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

international community of HEIs, academics, and research, the realities of the twentyfirst century have brought internationalization to the fore, in the Global North but increasingly also in the Global South context. This handbook therefore sheds more light on IHE developments and trends from multiple perspectives focusing on a wider range of contexts from the four Global South regions, namely: Asia Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); North Africa and the Middle East; and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In addition to focusing on the understandings, puzzles, policies, agendas, challenges, strategies, specific activities, processes, and outcomes of IHE, the authors also critically explore the broader historical and socio-political contexts, methodological developments, and forces shaping internationalization in the context of theoretical as well as regional and international IHE developments and frameworks. This is premised on the fact that such contexts influence the opportunities available for students’ and faculties’ participation in international programs and the development of internationalization strategies and policies (Vavrus and Pekol, 2015). It will make it possible to draw informative comparisons across regions and nations as well as the Global North in a way that enables a more holistic understanding of the complexities driving as well as generated by internationalization. It will also provide a roadmap for future direction in this context.

A BRIEF UNPACKING OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Internationalization refers to the symbiotic inter-relationships that exist amongst nations towards the achievement of quality in higher education. There is generally no consensus on the definition of internationalization with different people, describing it in differing ways depending on their contexts (e.g., van der Wende, 2001). The various definitions are based on activity, competency, ethos, and process perspectives. Knight (2004) used five lenses to define IHE, namely: programs, rationales, ad hoc, policies, and strategy approaches. Most IHE literature uses this definition by Knight (2004: 11), which sees internationalization occurring abroad or at home as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into the purpose, functions (teaching, research and service) and the delivery of higher education.” Internationalization involves cross-border physical and virtual interactions between academics, students, academic programs and providers; partnerships and collaborative ventures for teaching, learning, and research in the following domains: 1. Outbound and inbound student mobility 2. Academic staff mobility 3. International collaborative research, conferences, and journals 4. Institutional linkages 5. International presence/Cross border education/International branch campus 6. Internationalization at home and of the curriculum 7. Regional and local connectivity 8. Ranking 9. National policies for internationalization 10. Curriculum/educational program.

INTRODUCTION

3

Internationalization is also viewed as a transformative phenomenon which is moving key stakeholders including academic institutions and policymakers to adjust their frames of references and policies in response to the demands of the phenomenon. This is evidenced in the preoccupation with incorporating internationalization elements into policy and strategic documents at various levels including institutional, national, and regional (Rumbley, Altbach, and Reisberg, 2012). The motivations behind IHE for institutions and nations also vary widely (de Wit, 2002; Knight, 2004) and have been reported to change with the passage of time (LuijtenLub, 2007) but largely fall into interconnected variations of academic, socio-economic, political, and cultural intentions (de Wit, 2002; Knight, 2004). Existing literature, largely from the Global North, mentions rationales relating to inter alia: international academic standards of research and teaching, institutional and national human resource development, strategic alliances, technical assistance, resource mobilization, socioeconomic growth, and competitiveness (Knight, 2008). Studies have noted, though, that these understandings are not always put into practice. While internationalization may now highly feature as a priority on strategies of HEIs that may also have elaborate internationalization strategies and structures in place, these may not always translate into practice (Warwick and Moogan, 2013). There is, however, a clear acknowledgement that internationalization extends beyond mere student recruitment; it is a complex and continuous process, which includes curriculum development, staff capacitation, teaching and learning, teaching and research collaborations, staff–student exchanges, support services, and much more. The focus in some contexts of the Global North, for example, seems to continue to be very much on student recruitment (Warwick and Moogan, 2013). In their study of UK institutions, Warwick and Moogan (2013) observed that few universities have attempted to internationalize their curricula to match discourses of international experiences and student mobility. While some universities may sell internationalization on their websites and with other marketing tools, their staff may have no idea about their institutional strategy and what their responsibilities and obligations will be in the implementation of the strategy. In addition, institutions themselves may lack the necessary resources to develop their staff for the purpose, and the funding to provide appropriate support for the increasing international student numbers (e.g., language support). Internationalization of the curriculum expert, Betty Leask (2015), has argued that what is needed is not a globalized curriculum (which privileges dominant knowledges and groups), but one that would enable the development in all students (both foreign and home), of the critical attitudes, knowledge, and skills needed to empower them to effectively make a living as well as contribute to development in a fast changing and increasingly complex and interconnected global community. This buttresses Knight’s (2008) claim that how this is achieved will differ depending on particular features of diverse contexts including disciplinary, institutional, regional, national, and other contexts in which students may find themselves (Leask, 2015). These considerations show that internationalization is fraught with challenges and complexities that require particular understandings, appropriate strategic approaches, and commitment at all relevant levels. In this handbook our understanding of internationalization of higher education, including its definition, genesis, and evolution as a concept is aptly discussed by Hans de Wit in Chapter 2 and will thus not be explored in much detail here. In that thematic chapter, de Wit importantly observes that more countries across the globe are increasingly

4

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

engaging in internationalizing their academic practices, leading to the emergence of new voices and perspectives of the concept as new players come onto the scene. He calls for the revisiting of internationalization as a concept to accommodate emerging and new understandings of the concept and suggests that a more inclusive updated definition might be: The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff and to make a meaningful contribution to society. —de Wit, Hunter, Howard, and Egron Polak, 2015: 29 In Chapter 3, de Wit et al. highlight the critical need to go beyond seeing internationalization as a by-product of globalization but rather as a planned activity requiring national involvement in steering the process. This is more aptly demonstrated in the findings of Cr˘aciun’s (2018) National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Policies (NTEISPs) survey, presented by de Wit et al. As shown, the typology of NTEISPs is drawn from case studies and can form the basis of harmonization at various levels including institutional, national, regional, and global. Not surprisingly the issue of national policy is an important subject for some of the chapters in this handbook. However a more inclusive typology requires the study and inclusion of diverse case types. The NTEISPs typology presented by de Wit et al. presents a good starting point that future studies can continue to build on. What clearly emerges is that the need for a more global understanding of internationalization including the nature of South–South and North–South collaborations cannot be emphasized enough. Internationalization of higher education literature reveals that, although there exists great variation with respect to the drivers, mix of activities, and extent of engagement across institutions globally, the impact of internationalization is increasingly becoming more noticeable at the local level. Internationalization activities are dominated by international mobility of students, staff, and programs, but internationalization at home also continues to gain momentum as a key aspect of practice. Research highlights the diversity in internationalization understandings, motives, strategies, activities mix, and level of engagement across higher education institutions and its strategic positioning within nations, resulting from the different contextual complexities faced by different nations and higher education institutions (Caruana, 2010; Cr˘aciun, 2018). In this regard, internationalization literature (e.g., Chapman, Pekol, and Wilson, 2014; Vavrus and Pekol, 2015) has begun to look at ways in which institutions in the Global North and Global South are differentially positioned within the global political economy. It is argued that this understanding is underpinned by the view that “individuals and institutions in the Global South experience internationalization differently, and sometimes only marginally” (Vavrus and Pekol, 2015: 7). The dominant Anglocentric, “Western” conceptualizations and theorizations of internationalization are now being challenged and revisited to make them more applicable to “non-Western” contexts (Trahar, Green, de Wit, and Whitsed, 2015; Trahar and Hylund, 2011). For example, there are reportedly concerted moves to dispense with Anglo-American framed internationalization to domesticize internationalization of higher education in order to meet local needs. Trahar et al. (2015: 31) give examples of Asian contexts (e.g., Japan and Malaysia) where internationalization is “conceptualised as a way of promoting the context to the international community and inculcating a sense of

INTRODUCTION

5

nationalism” with internationalization being used to develop a sense of national pride and graduates being positioned as ambassadors for their contexts. Inward student mobility, for example, may be used to raise the status of the institution internationally. However in countries where the impact of hegemonic colonial practices may still strongly linger (e.g., some African countries) there may be skepticism over the meaning of internationalization, especially in the context of debates around the unequal distribution of knowledge production between developed and developing countries. In this regard, the contextual challenges and imperatives may demand the development of creative and flexible approaches to internationalization. Writing on the South African context, Cross, Mhlanga, and Ojo (2011: 82) ask: “How can South African universities be asked to incorporate an international dimension in their business when most of it has already been “international” and had very little local?” However, the literature that highlights South–South collaborations is showing how some developing countries are becoming sources of knowledge and manpower developers for other developing countries, thereby effectively taking over this role from the developed world (Cross, Sehoole, Mhlanga, Byars-Ameguide, Inglis, and Koen, 2011). In Cross et al.’s (2011: 82–86) study, their subjects conceptualized internationalization as “relocalisation” (“think locally first so as to gain internationality”), “Africanisation” (“engagement with Africa” in terms of knowledge production, privileging indigenous knowledges in teaching and learning and representation of African students), and “diversification of academic staff and students” (“global engagement”). Some studies (e.g., Whitsed and Green, 2013) have resultantly supported the contestations around definitions of the internationalization construct as this reflects its fluidity over time and context. Responding to these complexities, there are calls to look at internationalization in Global South contexts not only focusing on the understandings, specific activities, processes, and outcomes of IHE but also critically exploring the broader historical and socio-political contexts, dimensions, and forces shaping internationalization in specific contexts. Such issues help to understand the ability of HEIs in diverse contexts to exercise agency in initiating and managing varied forms of internationalization as well as in their interactions with institutions in other regions (both North and South). This is premised on the fact that such contexts influence the opportunities available for students and faculties to participate in international programs and the development of internationalization strategies and policies (Vavrus and Pekol, 2015). While considerable work has been done on IHE in the United States and Europe (e.g., de Wit, 2002; de Wit et al., 2015; Teichler, 2009), not much is known about IHE in Global South contexts. Certainly, no cohesive study of similar magnitude has been conducted that provides an overview of internationalization activity in the regions, which reveals the complexities noted above, given the diversities in the political economies within these contexts and in comparison with Global North contexts. Literature is however emerging (as noted by de Wit et al. in Chapter 3) that seeks to explore alternative internationalization perspectives, looking at internationalization activity in contexts not commonly found in the literature such as those in the Global South (e.g., de Wit et al., 2017; Proctor and Rumbley, 2018). As observed by Leask (2015), mentioned earlier, these new developments will extend our understanding of the complexities of internationalization practice while also gaining insight into its many continually evolving benefits and challenges. As argued by Trahar et al. (2015: 36), this constant and rapid change means that our understandings of internationalization of higher education will continue to be “emergent, contingent and necessarily situated.”

6

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

PROFILING THE GLOBAL SOUTH The “Global South” is a term favoured by scholars and development agencies, for example the World Bank, to classify countries that are poorer or less advanced in terms of stage of development, wealth, politics, technology, and demography, most of which are located either in the tropics or in the Southern Hemisphere. Todaro and Smith (2006) describe Global South economies as less developed, poorer, less democratic, technology receptors (less innovative), sometimes characterized by conflict, war, anarchy, tyranny, and rapid population growth when compared with the Global North. The Global South, also referred to as the “Third World” or “Developing World,” comprises those regions outside Europe and North America, inclusive of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean as well as some countries in the Middle East (Dados and Connell, 2012). Authors such as Mahler (2017) have debated the appropriateness, meaning, use, applicability, and analytical value of the term Global South, arguing that it reflects the existence of geopolitical relations of power. Several scholars (e.g., Hollington, Salverda, Schwarz, and Tappe, 2015; Mahler, 2018) have drawn attention to the widening gaps in wealth and power within countries, noting that “there are Souths in the geographic North and Norths in the geographic South” (Mahler, 2018: 32). Cases in point are those regarding the increasing competitiveness of emerging economies, for example Brazil, China, and India, over the longstanding industrialized powers of the Global North. Therefore it should be clearly spelt out that, in using this term, the editors and contributors of this handbook are cognizant of the fact that it lumps together very diverse socio-economic, cultural, and political experiences, perceptions, and perspectives. This edited handbook will add to this emerging focus and provide a comprehensive overview of Global South IHE trends from multiple perspectives, solely focusing on a wider range of contexts from four Global South regions: Asia Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean; North Africa and the Middle East; and Sub-Saharan Africa. Each of these regions will be represented by specific cases, characteristic of each region, but reflecting specific and unique focus. Although each case has a unique structure and focus, they follow a common outline inclusive of a description of the higher education sector in terms of its genesis, structure, and developments to set the tone for exploring the understandings, agendas, challenges, strategies, theoretical and methodological developments, processes as well as policy developments at national and institutional levels. At the end of each region, a cross-cutting concluding chapter provides a regional analysis from the specific cases as well as from literature on other countries in the region in order to highlight the emerging trends and areas of focus. To enhance comparability across institutions, countries, and regions, the handbook will explore the functional aspects of internationalization, type, stage, and process of internationalization activities, and the level of aggregation e.g., institutional, national, and regional. The handbook differs from other books on the same topic in that it is the first comprehensive account of IHE focusing on the four regions of the Global South. The handbook also presents a wealth of experience and expertise from the Global South by bringing together established and emerging scholars in the four regions. It will therefore be invaluable as a recommended and reference text for students, academics, practitioners, and policymakers, not only within these regions but beyond.

INTRODUCTION

7

THE REGIONS Asia Pacific Section I documents how the Asia-Pacific region has responded to the opportunities brought about by the surge in demand for higher education in the context of transnational education, business, research, and technology by promoting IHE. The six country cases (China, Japan, Korea, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and India) help to provide comparative perspectives on the status of IHE in each, inclusive of creating regional education hubs, student and staff mobility, and entrepreneurship that have been critical in transforming their higher education sector and enhancing their national competitiveness. The Asia-Pacific region is spread across forty countries and accounts for half of the world’s population. The region is characterized by enormous cultural, economic, geographical, and linguistic variations. Higher education in the region has been shaped by geography, history, politics, religion, language, economy, and regional linkages. Each chapter begins with a historical overview of the higher education sector in order to put the IHE development issues and trends in context. The chapters from the Asia-Pacific region reveal that IHE originated in the nineteenth century, when contemporary higher education systems where established. The strategy then was either to send students and academics abroad (mainly to Western countries, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as Australia) for advanced studies or research, or to invite foreign academics and professionals from different fields to introduce their modern knowledge and technology and work for the national governments. This resulted in the modeling of local higher education systems, even for those countries that had not been colonized (e.g., China and Japan) along foreign lines, particularly those of Western origin: All of the higher education systems considered here have Western roots and use basically Western models. In Asia, as in the rest of the world, the contemporary university is a basically Western institution, tracing their roots to the medieval European universities and shaped by the particular Western power that was the colonial ruler. In the case of Japan, China and Thailand, foreign influences were chosen with independence, but the models were foreign nonetheless. —Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989: xii As was further expounded by Altbach and Selvaratnam (1989), the colonial legacy for those countries that were colonized, for example Malaysia, manifests in critical issues, notably the language of instruction, the lack of attention to science, and the importance of expatriate academics in HEIs. Another case in point is that of Hong Kong, whose internal and external reviews on quality assurance rely heavily on criteria from the West (Mok and Cheung, 2011). The dominant characteristics of IHE in the region are those of international benchmarking as a way of competing for the best-performing students and staff from a global pool of candidates (Hazelkorn, 2011) and countries are thus keen to improve their global ranking in order to attract these candidates. What is clear in the Asia-Pacific context, akin to that of SSA, are the potential pitfalls of internationalization, including the threat to local knowledge, traditions, and national interests as well as the looming danger of recolonization if the curriculum continues to borrow from the West with little or no focus on local needs. The need for all higher

8

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

education stakeholders to redefine the mandate of HEIs in the internationalization process becomes critical wherein issues of indigenous knowledge, democracy, cultural value, social-economic priorities, and international tolerance are embedded. As Han and Shen note, in Chapter 5: Transplanting and modulating Western styles to cater to the needs of China, especially in the new era when the central government exhibits great enthusiasm in establishing tight connections to the external world, has gradually become a severe problem encountered by both researchers and university administrators. It remains an issue for further exploration of the practical strategies in internationalizing Chinese higher education (HE) and guiding its development work for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. The dominant IHE activities in the region have moved from mere student and staff mobility, as was the case in the 1990s, to also include internationalization of the university curriculum, promotion of cross-border higher education activities, adaptation of international standards for evaluating some educational programs, construction of “Centres of Excellence,” and establishment of bi-lateral cooperation between universities at both regional and international levels. In Chapter 7, Kim illustrates how with very few natural resources Korea leveraged IHE to achieve phenomenal success in building a globally competitive higher education system in such a short time. Korea now effectively competes with Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore for attracting Chinese and Southeast Asian out-bound students studying abroad. Korea’s HE market is much bigger than that of Hong Kong and Singapore so it has a capacity to absorb large Chinese demand. In this respect, Korea’s development is reminiscent of Say’s law in human resources, which propounds that the supply of human resource through education creates its own demand for it later. In the case of Korea, the rapid expansion of the primary school sector during the 1950s and 1960s provided abundant human resources for the rapid industrialization in the 1960s and 1970s, while the study abroad program and brain drain during the 1960s and 1970s provided an abundant pool of professional expatriates, who were educated and trained in developed nations. These became a valuable resource when Korea’s demand for highly skilled human resources later increased (Green, Ashton, James, and Sung, 1999). As is clearly stated by Kuzhabekova in Chapter 8 on Kazakhstan, notwithstanding the critical role of IHE in modernization of higher education in the region, the process of internationalization in most of the countries (with the exception of Malaysia for example), has never been planned as a separate item on the national education reform agenda. The Kazakhstani government has yet to adopt a separate internationalization strategy and, in fact, needs to clearly define the concept of internationalization (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016).

Latin America and the Caribbean Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is a vibrant region of thirty-three sovereign countries and fifteen dependencies whose rich diverse political, socio-economic, historical and geographic dynamics are driving internationalization of higher education (IHE) in unique ways. Section II consists of six chapters and a conclusion. Two of the chapters give us an extensive overview of the region and its two main sub-regions; four provide case examples of the specific experiences of individual countries. These include: emerging

INTRODUCTION

9

international giant and BRICS member, Brazil; Chile, which in 2018 ranked 45th globally and 4th within the LAC region in terms of research publications; Colombia, which is in an emerging state; and Mexico, where there is increased awareness of the value of IHE but still limited activity. Finally, a cross-cutting concluding chapter summarizes key findings and trends in and characteristics of the internationalization process of the region as presented through the preceding chapters. The introductory chapter, Higher Education, Internationalization and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean, by Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila (Chapter 12) and Annette Insanally and Luz Inmaculada Madera’s Caribbean chapter, Internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean (Chapter 14) together provide a comprehensive overview of IHE activity in the LAC region. It is however important to note that there is a paucity of IHE studies on the region particularly those focusing on specific contexts that would give us an in-depth look at the specific experiences of individual countries. The chapters in this handbook therefore add to the growing research interest in this important field in this region. The introductory chapter provides an extensive background to internationalization of higher education in the LAC region (albeit with a stronger focus on Latin America) looking at the relevant socio-economic and historical dynamics that account for the internationalization imperatives for the region. It also provides a good synopsis of some of the related higher education key works and internationalization studies in the region and importantly also draws some comparisons within the region and across other Global South as well as some Global North contexts thereby providing some helpful foundational work to an understanding of the region as a whole and the specific contexts covered in the handbook. The chapter shares highlights of internationalization trends in the different LAC countries as presented in a number of national reports with the important ones being: a publication commissioned by the World Bank (WB) (de Wit, Jaramillo, Knight, and Gacel-Ávila, 2005); some editions of the Global Survey on Internationalization Trends of the International Association of Universities (IAU) (e.g., Knight, 2006; Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014); and the recent Regional Survey on Internationalization Trends in LAC conducted by the UNESCO Observatory on Internationalization and Networks (OBIRET) (Gacel-Ávila and Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2017). The OBIRET survey is unique in having focused on the region as a whole and captured diverse patterns of the internationalization process in the region in the ten-year period following the WB study, and is also valuable in providing a comparison with the IAU Global Survey. Chapter 15 focuses on internationalization in the Caribbean. Considered one of the most diverse, pluri-racial and multi-cultural areas, the Caribbean integrates thirteen sovereign states and nineteen overseas departments and dependencies (including French Overseas Departments, the Dutch Antilles, British and American dependencies). Historically fragmented by colonial cultures, internationalization mobilization and harmonization through intraregional collaborations and networking are seen as facilitating regional integration and strengthening the sub-region’s global standing, particularly in pursuit of achieving goals of the 2030 Agenda through higher education (United Nations, 2015). Given that many of the countries are very small, this overview chapter is important in that it provides a close up of IHE activity across the region while exploring some of the critical issues for some individual countries. It is our hope that this important contribution will help generate interest among scholars to study IHE developments and patterns in each of the individual countries.

10

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Most of the Caribbean states (except Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic) are presented as having a different dynamic with respect to their peculiar geographical and linguistic characteristics due to their close ties to the United States, which make them attractive destinations internationally compared with the rest of LAC. The reported limited IHE activity may be due to education systems not strongly encouraging student mobility both within the region and abroad (IESALC, 2019). Further, the diversities also require mutual recognition of common accreditation systems and qualifications as well as language programs to facilitate student mobility and employability across the multilingual contexts. Put together, the overview and the individual country chapters present a rich array of topics on the internationalization of higher education at various levels including institutional, national, and regional, which are characterized by the “political, economic, socio-cultural and academic rationales” that drive IHE in its diverse forms within and across the nations. These include: ●

Opportunities, benefits, risks and challenges

●

Plans and strategies of IHE; structures

●

●

●

Regional and sub-regional integration and collaborations; bilateral cooperation programs; qualifications and common accreditation systems; research; teaching South–South and North–South collaborations Long-term exchange programs such as the Brazilian Exchange Program for Undergraduate Students (PEC-G) created in 1965

●

Student mobility including exchange programs; inbound and outbound mobility

●

Internationalization at home and internationalization of the curriculum

●

Internationalization abroad; liaison offices and campuses abroad

●

Internationalization of higher education national and institutional policies

●

IHE financial resourcing

●

Language programs

●

Global university rankings

●

Internationalization and social development.

Chapter 18, the concluding chapter, provides a helpful synopsis of key findings from all regional chapters noting commonalities and differences across the given contexts. Importantly, it notes some of the key barriers to effective internationalization with the lack of support at the national level in terms of national policies and funding to help facilitate the operationalization of strategies being common major limitations.

North Africa and the Middle East Section III provides explorations of IHE in a selection of MENA countries, including the Gulf (GCC) region, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Palestine and Egypt. It also includes an introduction and a cross-cutting chapter, which provides an overview of some of the key internationalization themes from the region. MENA is an acronym for the Middle East and North Africa region which consists of about 19–21 countries. This small region (6 percent of the world’s population) is known

INTRODUCTION

11

for its rich oil reserves (60 percent of the world’s oil reserves; 14 Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations are within the MENA region) and natural gas reserves (45 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves), which make it an important source of global economic stability. The region’s geopolitical importance has increased following the Arab Spring anti-government uprisings and armed rebellions in the early 2010s, which saw the fall of some dictatorships. The more recent civil unrests in, for example, Libya and Syria have continued to draw international attention to the region. One of the outcomes of the Arab Spring is the demand by young people in MENA for more and better opportunities in terms of education, employment, international mobility, knowledge production, and entrepreneurship. “Higher education, migration, and labour mobility are key policy areas as MENA nations address the need for a strong skills base to underpin the economic and social development of the region’s disparate economies” (Jaramillo, Ruby, Henard, and Zaafrane, 2011: 1). The World Bank report (Jaramillo et al., 2011) notes that the MENA economies share an interest in the supply of and demand for higher education and are differentially involved in a range of internationalizationrelated activities, including: investing in higher education infrastructure to raise it to international standards and competitiveness; encouraging study abroad; and attracting international students. The report further notes the critical need for a systematic policy discussion on the internationalization of higher education to help MENA in terms of the formation of required skills and competencies, the acquisition of qualifications, and the application of the skills and competencies. The development of quality education, the recognition of qualifications in different countries, the role of international partners, and the incentives to study and work within the region and elsewhere are all important considerations for internationalization initiatives. Country level research is therefore critical to advance policy conversations at national and regional levels. The economic status of the region and its potential growth as well as its very strategic location in relation to Africa, Europe, and Asia as well as other parts of the world positions it well for boosting its internationalization of higher education efforts and global impact. Internationalization in the Arab world is regarded to be as old as the genesis of higher education (eighteenth and nineteenth centuries), as a tool for advancing national agendas, and as contributing to nation building (De Wit and Merkx, 2012). In its early years it took the form of outbound student mobility with students flocking to European destinations. In addition, local universities were built following Western models (Abyad, 2012). Recent massification of higher education has however led to the introduction of new forms of higher education including private universities, virtual learning, open universities, decentralized campuses, parallel education, franchised programs, and International Branch Campuses (IBCs) (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019; Al Attari, 2015). This has however been hampered by limited resources, which has had a negative impact on the quality of the education. Internationalization of higher education is therefore seen as helping to provide academic and cultural experiences that can generate quality education through innovation and best practices in learning and teaching, which in turn can enhance graduate employability in the international job marketplace. Internationalization is also seen as helping to structure existing internationalization practices (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). Across the region IHE Internationalization is understood as occurring at the national, regional, and international levels; hence, terms such as nationalization, regionalization, and internationalization interact in official documents with the broader aims being “strengthening national loyalty” and “promoting the national heritage and international

12

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

culture.” Regionalization in higher education relates to the Arab national identity and is evidenced by use of the Arabic language as the medium of instruction and publication and adherence to Islamic values while “maintaining the democratic approach and academic freedom” (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). These practices, as well as mastering a foreign language and using English as a supporting language in the process of internationalization, are significant as they enhance relations with regional and international countries. Such a vision is aptly captured in the Jordanian national strategic plan of 2007–2012 as: “Having a high quality higher education system, capable of preparing highly-qualified human resources that are able to meet the current and future needs of society and compete at the Arab and international levels,” and “Improving and modernizing study plans and academic programs in line with the requirements of national and pan-Arab development, taking into account the scientific and technological developments at the global level.” Using diverse documentations (including commissioned reports, institutional and national documents) and empirical data, the chapters in this section explore indicators of the internationalization of higher education, looking at various topics including: ●

●

Motivations, drivers, processes, opportunities, challenges, and strategies Academic Mobility: inbound and student mobility (regional and international); exchange programs e.g., Tempus and Erasmus+ ❍

mostly regional with a minority international students); not much focus on outbound student mobility in the literature highlighting the commercialization of student mobility; inbound and outbound staff mobility

●

Intercultural competence

●

Language programs; linguistic and cultural diversity

●

Collaborations: regional and international

●

Foreign campuses; international universities

●

Research and publications

●

Collaborations and partnerships

●

Internationalization at home; internationalization of the curriculum

●

Internationalization and the role of technology

●

Quality assurance and IHE. Challenges include: ❍

absence of national IHE policy

❍

management and financial resources

❍

paucity of research

❍

attitudes towards internationalization due to cultural tensions, for example

❍

the impact of increasing globalization advances in global communication.

Sub-Saharan Africa Section IV commences with an introduction to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as a region that is still lagging behind other regions with respect to gross national product (GNP) growth, human development indicators, and higher education (Goujon, Haller, and Kmet, 2017; UNECA, 2014). However, it is encouraging to note that in 2018, according to the World

INTRODUCTION

13

FIGURE 1.1: Top ten fastest growing economies in the world (World Bank, 2018).

Bank, six of the world’s ten fastest growing economies were in SSA (see Figure 1.1). The section looks at two of these (Ghana and Ethiopia) as well as the two alternating giants of Africa (South Africa and Nigeria). The other two cases are Zimbabwe (representing countries whose once vibrant economies have taken a dip in recent years) and Kenya (a favourite with international development agencies). Although the focus of Section IV is on internationalization in higher education, all chapters begin by describing the higher education context of the countries in question in terms of the historical perspectives, higher education institutions (HEIs), policies, as well as in achievements and challenges. In some SSA countries, higher education is as old as the Timbuktu Kingdom of Mali and is described as, in the case of Ethiopia, as ancient as the obelisks. However, for most SSA countries, contemporary higher education is shaped by the colonial history and the stage of economic development. Most of the first HEIs started as constituent colleges of European universities wherein the parent university provided quality assurance in terms of curricula, staff appointments, student assessment and qualification award (Altbach and Kelly, 1978). Teferra (2007) avers that colonialism in SSA is immortalized in the continued domination of colonial languages (e.g., English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese), in administrative structures in academia, business, and government. This should therefore put SSA in an advantageous position considering the rise of English as the dominant language of teaching and learning as well as scientific communication using the affordances of ICT. Sadly, these changes have had the effect of concentrating ownership of publishers, databases, and other key resources in the hands of institutions in the Global North. Furthermore, teaching in English has been equated to internationalization with the unintended result of reducing the quality of education since English will not be the native language. The section on internationalization of higher education in SSA is a compilation of the developments, experiences, and challenges peculiar to the region as well as those that are comparable to other regions. The aim of the section is to contribute to the IHE debate by

14

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

providing information for benchmarking, comparative analysis, guidance and decision making to HEIs, academics, governments, quality assurance agencies, researchers, students curriculum developers, and international personnel. This section interrogates historical perspectives of higher education and the extent to which IHE has (or has not) metamorphosed in Sub-Saharan countries. While the section does not take the encyclopaedic approach of including a chapter on every country, the six anglophone country chapters included are representative enough to identify commonalities and particular directions. The selection of the countries included was based on geographical location, level of global engagement (as judged by publicly available contributions to IHE conversations), type of colonial history as well as the availability of reputable scholars willing and able to contribute a country chapter on IHE. The section is divided into eight chapters: an introduction to IHE in Sub-Saharan Africa, six country chapters, and a concluding cross-cutting chapter. The country chapters focusing on the different contexts of Ethiopia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria engage with IHE aspects of critical importance also incorporating empirical evidence on certain aspects of IHE within the countries in question. This exposé of country-specific scenarios creates fertile ground for the concluding chapter to highlight and interrogate commonalities and peculiarities within the region. These patterns and trends form the basis of the comparative analysis that constitutes the concluding chapter of this handbook of IHE in the Global South. A thematic approach is adopted wherein each chapter, although having a focus unique to the peculiarities of the country, is crafted around a set of identified cross-cutting themes. For example, providing an overview of the higher education system of each country was considered critical in putting the IHE debate into context critical when making comparative analyses. For instance, countries that have either suffered a colonial past tended to have similar post-colonial challenges. Each chapter explores some or all of the following issues regarding IHE: ●

Overview of higher education system

●

Institutional and national IHE policies

●

Approaches to IHE

●

IHE Research

●

IHE and technology

●

Future aspirations and directions on IHE.

The SSA section critically analyses IHE from a decolonial epistemic perspective, arguing that for internationalization to succeed in its intended purpose, the attainment of a deimperialized, decolonized and deracialized world system and global order is critical (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). In SSA, internationalization is always entangled with regionalization, “Africanization,” as well as nationalization as part of core objectives of the Association of African Universities (AAU). Coloniality here addresses epistemological questions of how colonial modernity has interfered with other ways of knowing, social meaning-making, imagining and seeing; it also concerns the exertion of hegemonic power and oppression, resulting in the current asymmetrical global power structure that centers around countries in the Global North (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013). Coloniality works as a crucial structuring process within global imperial designs, sustaining the superiority of the Global North. Part of the purpose here

INTRODUCTION

15

therefore is an attempt to unmask coloniality as a possible underside of internationalization while still recognizing what positive aspects of it there may be. Decoloniality is about confronting coloniality in all domains of power, being, and knowledge and is therefore an unfinished business. It is more than just moving from one fundamentalism to another, rather it is about moving from one ecology of knowledge to multiple ecologies in service of the world. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) states that decolonization is not about revenge, it is important to keep what is useful while seeking to decolonize various things through: examining normative foundations of theory; re-provincializing Europe rather than the over-representation which exists and de-provincializing Africa; undertaking a decolonial critique of dominant knowledges and unmasking what is concealed; rethinking thinking itself, through the recovery of subaltern/other knowledges; and learning to unlearn in order to relearn. So really a paradigmatic shift from what was meant for colonization to what is meant for liberation and freedom. The SSA section reveals a wide range of internationalization processes and approaches with a key focus on student and staff mobility; and knowledge exchange and collaboration with mainly countries in the Global North—what can be termed a “vertical approach” to internationalization, which places at the very center of this kind of internationalization the “Look North” approach. What is also common is a lack of strategic and wellarticulated internationalization policy, with much of it happening in an accidental and incremental nature, often with varying degrees of success. Many of the contexts have awoken to the intricacies of internationalization, with some paying attention to how best to maximize its potentials while watching out for its pitfalls; Zimbabwe is one such country, along with Kenya and Ghana. It appears that for many in these contexts, internationalization is actually favored for what is seen as its transformational capabilities, regarded as a beneficial tool for economic and political policies with its contribution. Maringe et al. (2013) related some other anticipated benefits of internationalization to four broad areas of value creation, including: strategic and symbolic value; knowledge creation value; cultural integration value; and global market value. They observed that some of the associated risks of internationalization were “brain drain,” the dominance of Western hegemony, commodification of HE and perceived erosion of quality. Many of the afore mentioned were noticeable in the contexts explored and really emphasize the complexity of internationalization as double edged. Chapter 33 on Kenya looks at the positive returns of IHE on partnerships in research and publications and support to doctoral programs. Some SSA chapters, for example the Zimbabwean case, highlight the importance of internationalization in improving the ranking of HEIs. This is premised on the fact that, in addition to research output and teaching, the Times Higher Education (2016) ranks HEIs on the basis of its international outlook. The international outlook considers the HEI’s capacity to attract international students, staff, and collaborative research. Although most countries in SSA show that they have embraced IHE, most are doing it on an ad hoc basis without a strategic direction as enunciated in national IHE policies. For example, Oyewole in Chapter 34 argues that: The Higher Education system in Nigeria is one of the largest in Africa with over 800 HEIs. Nigeria has nearly four times more universities than Egypt and over six times more than South Africa, and boasts of the largest private university system in the continent. Nigeria is therefore expected to be a model of internationalization in the

16

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

continent. Unfortunately, the level of internationalization in Nigeria’s institutions is rather low with no national strategic focus. Chapter 33 on Kenya also emphasizes the lack of a coherent national government policy to moderate institutional practices as a problem in a situation where the commercial and political imperatives of internationalization would be the overriding motivation from external partners. Furthermore, Ogachi argues that the institutional internationalization strategies encourage a one-way traffic wherein institutions look at internationalization as a means of getting support from external partners with little consideration of what they would give to leverage the relationships. This approach, Ogachi explains, “leads to a sense of patronage from the side of the external partners, undermines the mutuality implied in the ethics of internationalization and brings back the ‘imperial echoes’ of how universities in Africa were established.”

REFERENCES Abyad, M. (2012). Education in the Arab World. Syria: Ministry of Culture. Al-Agtash, S., and Khadra, L. (2019). Internationalization context of Arabia Higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(2): 68–81. Al Attari, A. (2015). Privatization of Arab higher education with special reference to Jordan. In Hatouri, M. and Hashim, R. (eds), Reforms in Islamic Higher Education. Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press. Alemu, S. (2014). An appraisal of the internationalization of higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. CEPS , 4(2): 71–90. Altbach, P.G., and Kelly, G. (eds) (1978). Education and Colonialism. New York: Longman. Altbach, P.G., and Selvaratnam, V. (eds) (1989). From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Caruana, V. (2010). The relevance of the internationalised curriculum to graduate capability: The role of new lecturers’ attitudes in shaping the “student voice.” In Jones, E. (ed.), Internationalization and the Student Voice: Higher Education Perspectives. London: Routledge. Chapman, D.W., Pekol, A., and Wilson, E. (2014). Cross-border university networks as a development strategy: Lessons from three university networks focused on emerging pandemic threats. International Review of Education, 60(5): 619–637. Cr˘aciun D. (2018). National policies for higher education internationalization: A global comparative perspective. In Curaj, A., Deca, L., and Pricopie, M. (eds), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 95–106. Cross, M., Mhlanga, E., and Ojo, E., (2011). Emerging concept of internationalization in South African higher education: Conversations on local and global exposure at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(1): 75–92. Dados, N., and Connell, R. (2012). The Global South. Contexts, 11(1): 12–13. De Wit, H. (ed.) (1995). Strategies for Internationalization of Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

INTRODUCTION

17

De Wit, H. (2013). Reconsidering the concept of internationalization. International Higher Education, 70: 5–7. De Wit, H. (2015). March. Quality assurance and internationalization: Trends, challenges and opportunities. INQAAHE conference (vol. 30). De Wit, H., and Merkx, G. (2012). The history of internationalization of higher education. In Deardorff, D.K., de Wit, H., Heyl, J.D., and Adams, T. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, pp. 43–60. De Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Jones, E. and Jooste, N. (eds) (2017). The Globalization of Internationalization: Emerging Voices and Perspectives. London and New York: Taylor and Francis. De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard L., and Egron Polak, E. (eds) (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies. De Wit, H., Jaramillo, I.C., Knight, J., and Gacel-Ávila, J. (eds) (2005). Higher Education in Latin America: The International Dimension. Washington, DC : The World Bank. Delgado-Márquez, B.L., Hurtado-Torres, N.E., and Bondar, Y., 2011. Internationalization of higher education: Theoretical and empirical investigation of its influence on university institution rankings. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 8(2): 265–284. Egron-Polak, E. and Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing Expectations, Fundamental Values. Paris: International Association of Universities. Gacel-Ávila, J. and Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2017). I Encuesta Regional sobre Tendencias de Internacionalización en Educación Terciaria. OBIRET . Guadalajara: UNESCO-IESALC . Goujon, A., Haller, M., and Kmet, B.M. (eds) (2017). Higher Education in Africa: Challenges for Development, Mobility and Cooperation. Cambridge: Scholars Publishing. Green, M.F., and Shoenberg, R.E. (2006). Where Faculty Live: Internationalizing the Disciplines (vol. 2). American Council on Education. Green, W., and Whitsed, C. (2013). Reflections on an alternative approach to continuing professional learning for internationalization of the curriculum across disciplines. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17: 148–164. Green, F., Ashton, D. James, D., and Sung, J. (1999). The role of the state in skill formation: Evidence from the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15(1): 82–96. Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for WorldClass Excellence. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Hollington, A., Salverda, T., Schwarz, T., and Tappe, O. (2015). Concepts of the Global South. Cologne, Germany: Global South Studies Centre Cologne, Germany. IESALC (2019). Regional Convention for the Recognition of Higher Education Studies, Degrees and Diplomas in Latin America, Buenos Aires OBIRET. Guadalajara: UNESCOIESALC . Jaramillo, A., Ruby, A., Henard, F., and Zaafrane, H. (2011). Internationalization of Higher Education in MENA: Policy issues associated with skills formation and mobility. Washington, DC : World Bank. Jumakulov, Z., and Ashirbekov, A. (2016). Higher education internationalization: Insights from Kazakhstan. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 6: 35–55. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, rationales and approaches. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of higher education: New directions, new challenges. The 2005 IAU global survey report. Paris: International Association of Universities.

18

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil, The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalization of the Curriculum. London: Routledge. Luijten-Lub, A. (2007). Choices in internationalization: How higher education institutions respond to internationalization, Europeanisation, and globalisation. Enschede, The Netherlands: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente. Mahler, Anne Garland (2017). Global South. In O’Brien, E. (ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in Literary and Critical Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Mahler, Anne Garland (2018). From the Tricontinental to the Global South: Race, Radicalism, and Transnational Solidarity. Durham: Duke University Press. Maringe, F., Foskett, N., and Woodfield, S. (2013). Emerging internationalization models in an uneven global terrain: Findings from a global survey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1): 9–36. Mok, K.H., and Cheung, A.B.L. (2011). Global aspirations and strategizing for world-class status: New form of politics in higher education governance in Hong Kong. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(3): 231–251. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2013). Why decoloniality in the 21st century? The Thinker, 48, 10–15. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2018). Epistemic Freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and Decolonization. London and New York: Routledge. Proctor D., and Rumbley, L. (2018). The Future Agenda for Internationalization in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge. Rumbley, L.E., Altbach, P.G., and Reisberg, L. (2012). Internationalization within the higher education context. In Deardoff, D., de Wit, H., Heyl, J., and Adams, T. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, pp. 3–26. Teferra, D. (2007). Higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Forest, J.J.F., and Altbach, P.G. (eds), International Handbook of Higher Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol. 18. Dordrecht: Springer. Teichler, U. (2009). Internationalization of higher education: European experiences. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10: 93–106. Times Higher Education (2016). World University Rankings 2015–2016. Available at: https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/world-ranking#!/page/0/ length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats Todaro, M.P. and Smith, S.C. (2006). Economic Development, 8th edn. Reading: AddisonWesley. Trahar, S., and Hyland, F. (2011). Experiences and perceptions of internationalization in higher education in the UK . Higher Education Research and Development, 30(5): 623–633. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.598452 Trahar, S., Green, W., de Wit, H., and Whitsed, C. (2015). The internationalization of higher education. In Case, J.M. and Huisman, J. (eds), Researching Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 23–41. United Nations (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. General Assembly 70 session. United Nations Commission Economic for Africa (UNECA) (2014). Economic Report on Africa, 2014. Van der Wende, M.C. (2001). The international dimension in national higher education policies: What has changed in Europe in the last five years? European Journal of Education, 36(4): 431–441.

INTRODUCTION

19

Vavrus, F., and Pekol, A. (2015). Critical internationalization: Moving from theory to practice. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 2(2), Article 2. Retrieved from http:// preserve.lehigh.edu/;re/vol2/iss2/2 Warwick, P. and Moogan, Y.J. (2013). A comparative study of perceptions of internationalization strategies in UK universities. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1): 102–123. World Bank (2018). The World Bank Annual Report 2018 (English). Washington, DC : World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/630671538158537244/TheWorld-Bank-Annual-Report-2018 Zeleza, P.T. (2005). Transnational education and African universities. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 3(1): 1–28.

20

Thematic Chapters

21

22

CHAPTER TWO

Internationalization in Higher Education The Challenging Road from a Western Paradigm to a Global and Inclusive Concept1 HANS DE WIT

INTRODUCTION Internationalization of higher education is still mainly considered in terms of a Westernized, largely Anglo-Saxon, and predominantly English-speaking paradigm (Jones and de Wit, 2012). Over the past decades, most scholarly and public attention with respect to internationalization in higher education has focused on the Western world. Majee and Ress (2018: 4) state that: “very little research has aimed to understand and conceptualise internationalization efforts in the context of the historical particularities of the postcolonial condition.” It is important “to learn from other non-western national and cultural contexts—to understand the full extent of internationalization as a phenomenon and what we can learn from each other in order to benefit students, employers and nations.” What now is called “internationalization of higher education” as a concept and strategy is a recent phenomenon that has emerged over the last thirty years, driven by a dynamic combination of political, economic, socio-cultural, and academic rationales and stakeholders. How do we understand the evolution of internationalization as a concept? Is a more diverse and inclusive internationalization replacing the Western paradigm? Is there a shift in paradigm from cooperation to competition, as Van der Wende (2001) observed? Do we see an ongoing dominance of the internationalization abroad component at the cost of internationalization at home, or a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to internationalization? And is internationalization a key change agent towards innovation and global social responsibility of higher education? With an increasing number of countries and types of institutions around the world engaging in the process of internationalization, new perspectives from those whose

This chapter is a revised and updated version of de Wit (2019a).

1

23

24

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

voices do not normally have a strong presence in the discourse are important. We “need to learn from other non-western national and cultural contexts—to understand the full extent of internationalization as a phenomenon and what we can learn from each other in order to benefit students, employers and nations” (Jones and de Wit, 2012: 50). Many changes in international higher education are happening, which have only increased in range and complexity over the past decade. As mentioned by Jones and de Wit (forthcoming): global competition for talent, growing complexity in cross-border activity, branch campuses and the creation of global professionals and citizens are issues that are becoming essential parts of the language of university leaders in all parts of the world. Notions of importing and exporting countries are being turned upside down as students choose study destinations in countries that were once seen as merely sending students to the “west” to study. Global mobility flows are increasingly complex, offering new opportunities for those able and willing to access them. Non-western countries are emerging as key players and beginning to challenge the dominance of western discourse on internationalization. There are increasing expectations of employers for cross-culturally capable graduates, ideally with international experience, to meet these demands. Time for a critical reflection on the current and future state of internationalization in higher education, in particular in the current nationalist, populist, and anti-global political climate!

IMPACT OF MASSIFICATION AND THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY Internationalization must be seen in the context of the changing role and position of higher education in the world. Rapid changes are taking place in international higher education, which have only increased in range and complexity over the past decade. In particular its massification, the global knowledge economy, and the emphasis on reputation and rankings. These three key factors in higher education globally have had an important impact on its internationalization. The emphasis on internationalization has traditionally been on exchange and cooperation, and there continues to be a rhetoric around the need to understand different cultures and their languages. Nevertheless, a gradual but increasingly visible shift has been apparent since the second half of the 1990s towards a more competitive internationalization. Van der Wende (2001) calls this a shift in paradigm from cooperation to competition. Competition for students, for scholars, for talents for the knowledge economy, for funding of complex research, for access to the top 500 in global rankings, and for access to high impact publications. Recruitment, excellence in research, and reputation are driving the internationalization agenda of institutions and national governments, at the cost of the large majority of tertiary education institutions and their students and staff. According to de Wit, Hunter, Howard, and Egron-Polak (2015), internationalization needs to evolve into a more comprehensive, more intentional, and less elitist (for all students and staff) process, less focused on mobility and less economically driven, with the goal to enhance the quality of education and research and make a meaningful

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

25

contribution to society. How successful are we in changing the direction to the more competitive approach described above?

INTERNATIONALIZATION, AN EVOLVING CONCEPT Internationalization in higher education has evolved over the past thirty years from a rather ad hoc, marginal, and fragmented phenomenon to a more central and comprehensive component of higher education policy—although still more in rhetoric than in concrete action. In general terms one can say that internationalization has seen the following key characteristics: ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

More focused on internationalization abroad than on internationalization at home. More ad hoc, fragmented, and marginal than strategic, comprehensive, and central in policies. More in the interest of a small, elite subset of students and faculty than focused on global and intercultural outcomes for all. Directed by a constantly shifting range of political, economic, social/cultural, and educational rationales, with increasing focus on economic motivations. Increasingly driven by national, regional, and global rankings. Little alignment between the international dimensions of the three core functions of higher education: education, research, and service to society. Primarily a strategic choice and focus of institutions of higher education, and less a priority of national governments. Less important in emerging and developing economies, and more of a particular strategic concern among developed economies.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CURRICULUM AT HOME In the past decade, however, one can observe a reaction to these trends. While mobility is still the most dominant factor in internationalization policies worldwide, there is increasing attention being paid to internationalization of the curriculum at home. There is also a stronger call for comprehensive internationalization, which addresses all aspects of education in an integrated way. Although economic rationales and rankings still drive the agenda of internationalization, there is more emphasis now being placed on other motivations for internationalization. For example, attention is being paid to integrating international dimensions into tertiary education quality assurance mechanisms, institutional policies related to student learning outcomes, and the work of national and discipline-specific accreditation agencies. Leask, Jones, and de Wit (2018) state that the implementation of “internationalization of the curriculum at home” appears to be struggling to move beyond good intentions and isolated examples of good practice. According to them we are still far from any form of internationalization that is inclusive and accessible rather than elitist and exclusive. As a result, at the very least, they call for urgent attention to be paid to the following:

26

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

1. We must, as scholars and practitioners, not only continue but also escalate our efforts at working together across disciplines, professional areas and national boundaries as well as within universities. 2. We must engage more with stakeholder groups beyond the academy, striving towards the common goal of creating a better, more equal and fairer world. 3. We must integrate internationalization with other agendas—disciplinary, professional, institutional, national, and regional—which are also focused on improving the quality of education and research for all students. Internationalization of the curriculum, teaching, learning, and service should not operate in a vacuum. 4. We must place emphasis on enhancing the quality of education and research for all students and staff in all parts of the world. This requires integrated policy and strategy as well as cooperation and partnership within and between institutions across the globe. De Wit and Leask (2019) call for new ways of becoming and being international, and Brandenburg, de Wit, Jones, and Leask (2019) call for an internationalization of higher education for society, more directed to the role of higher education in solving global problems, the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. According to them, working towards inclusive international and intercultural learning for all means that we become more respectful of diverse contexts, agendas, and perspectives on a global scale. As internationalization has moved from the margins of higher education research, policy, and practice, it has become clear that the previously disjointed approaches that characterized its earliest years have given way to an understanding that sophisticated synergies are required to realize its full potential.

INTERNATIONALIZATION RECONSIDERED As internationalization and global engagement become entrenched around the world as mainstream components of quality in higher education, the need to ensure high-quality professional preparation of those responsible for the internationalization agenda in their respective institutions or systems of higher education becomes more widespread and sustained. An updated definition of internationalization has emerged, reflecting these broader understandings of its nature and purpose: “The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff and to make a meaningful contribution to society” (de Wit et al., 2015). According to the most recent survey results from the 5th Global Survey on Internationalization by the International Association of Universities (IAU), two thirds of university leaders around the world do consider internationalization to be an important agenda issue, although Marinoni and de Wit (2019) observe that there is an increasing divide between institutions that consider internationalization as of high importance and those that do not. They observe that “the reasons for such a divide between HEIs that consider internationalization extremely important and those who do not is worth a reflection and deserves to be studied more in depth, especially if one considers internationalization to be an essential part of all HEIs’ mission and a sign of quality” (Marinoni and de Wit, 2019: 1).

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

27

As described above, the challenges that institutions encounter in their internationalization strategy are diverse. There are the pressures of revenue generation, competition for talents, and branding and reputation (rankings). There is also pressure to focus on international research and publication, on recruitment of international students and scholars, and on the use of English as language of research and instruction. These challenges conflict with a more inclusive and less elitist approach to internationalization, building on the needs and opportunities of institutions’ own students and staff. In other words, there are tensions between a short-term neoliberal approach to internationalization, focusing primarily on mobility and research, and a long-term comprehensive quality approach—global learning for all. One of the main risks is that internationalization continues to be perceived as strengthening the dominance of the existing powers in international higher education: regions, nations, and institutions. Jones and de Wit (forthcoming) ask: Will new regional alliances become an alternative for the European Union and the United States, and will the creation of new post-cold war blocks of political and economic influence provide a new focus to higher education institutions and national higher education systems? Will institutions from Asia, Latin America and Africa be able to compete as world class universities in ranking and branding? Will successful forms of South–South cooperation emerge as an alternative to current unequal North–South partnerships? The main misconception about internationalization is that we consider it too much as a goal in itself, instead of as a means to an end. Internationalization is no more than a way to enhance the quality of education and research, and of service to society. This quality, and the related internationalization, as defined by de Wit et al. (2015), is under pressure, and the current global political climate (Altbach and de Wit, 2017) is not supportive in reversing the trend. On the contrary, de Wit and Leask (2019: 1) argue that: Aligning the practice of internationalization with human values and the common global good, requires that we first challenge some of our long held views about what it is to “be international” as a university, a teacher, a student, a human being. This requires pushing the boundaries of our own and others’ thinking, focusing on people and ensuring that they develop and demonstrate the institution’s espoused human values. A more inclusive approach to internationalization, as described above by de Wit et al. (2015) in their definition, and by the urgent actions called for by de Wit and Leask (2019) and by Brandenburg et al. (2019), is needed now more than ever. As de Wit (2019b: 1) note in a reflection on the Conference of the Americas on International Education (CAIE 2019) in Bogota: “The world is changing as also the world of international education, with increasing collaboration South–South and strengthening of ties from Latin America with Europe, Canada, China and other countries in Asia Pacific, leaving the US aside. American international education has to be careful that it does not isolate itself, does not create its own wall.” Is internationalization in these countries more coerced than intentional, as Teferra (2019) argues? And do we not see an increase in forced internationalization, with the flood of refugees asking for access to higher education outside of their own countries, as Ergin, de Wit, and Leask (2019) observe? At the same time, does internationalization in the developing world have to avoid simply mimicking the priorities of Anglo-Western

28

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

forms of internationalization, and develop distinctive forms of the concept which better reflect local needs and priorities? A recent study on national tertiary education policies and strategies in mid- and low-income countries seems to point to the former (de Wit, Rumbley, Cr˘aciun, Mihut, and Woldegiyorgis, 2019), but there are also more positive signs, reflected in this publication as well as in others.

REFERENCES Altbach, P.G. and de Wit, H. (2017). The new nationalism and internationalization of HE . University World News, 474, September 15, 2017. Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E. and Leask, B. (2019). Internationalization in higher education for society. University World News, 548, April 20, 2019. De Wit, H. (2019a). Internationalization in higher education: A critical review. SFU Educational Review, 12(3): 9–17. De Wit, H. (2019b). Is U.S. international education building a wall? The world view. Inside Higher Education, October 30, 2019. De Wit, H. and Leask, B. (2019). Towards new ways of becoming and being international. University World News, 561, July 28, 2019. De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard L., and Egron Polak, E. (eds) (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Brussels. De Wit, H., Rumbley, L.E., Cr˘aciun, D., Mihut, G., and Woldegiyorgis, A. (2019). International mapping of national tertiary education internationalization strategies and plans (NTEISPs). CIHE Perspectives, 12, Boston: Centre for International Higher Education. Ergin, H, de Wit, H., and Leask, B. (2019). Forced internationalization: An emerging phenomenon. International Higher Education, 97: 9–10. Jones, E., and de Wit, H. (2012). Globalization of internationalization: Thematic and regional reflections on a traditional concept. AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3: 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1353/aud.2012.0012 Jones, E. and de Wit, H. (forthcoming). The globalization of Internationalization? In Cohn, D. and Khan H.E. (eds), International Education at the Crossroads. Indiana: Indiana University Press. Leask, B., Jones, E. and de Wit, H. (2018). Towards inclusive intercultural learning for all. University World News, December 7, issue no. 532. Majee, U.S., and Ress, S.B. (2018). Colonial legacies in internationalization of higher education: racial justice and geopolitical redress in South Africa and Brazil. Compare: a Journal of Comparative and International Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1521264 Marinoni, G. and de Wit, H. (2019). Internationalization and inequality, first results from the 5th Global Survey of IAU . University World News, 534, January 2019. Teferra, D. (2019). Defining internationalization—intention versus coercion. University World News, August 23, 2019. Van der Wende, M. (2001). Internationalization policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14: 249–259.

CHAPTER THREE

International Mapping of National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs)1 ˘ CIUN , HANS DE WIT, LAURA E. RUMBLEY, DANIELA CRA GEORGIANA MIHUT, AND AYENACHEW WOLDEGIYORGIS

Over the past thirty years, internationalization in higher education has become a key point of strategy for international entities such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank, and the European Commission, as well as for national governments, and for institutions of higher education and their associations. Some of its main trends in those thirty years have been: ● ●

●

●

● ●

●

More focused on internationalization abroad than on internationalization at home. More ad hoc, fragmented and marginal than strategic, comprehensive, and central in policies. More in the interest of a small, elite subset of students and faculty than focused on global and intercultural outcomes for all. Directed by a constantly shifting range of political, economic, social/cultural, and educational rationales, with increasing focus on economic motivations. Increasingly driven by national, regional, and global rankings. Little alignment between the international dimensions of the three core functions of higher education: education, research, and service to society. Primarily a strategic choice and focus of institutions of higher education, and less a priority of national governments.

This chapter is a summarized version of de Wit, Rumbley, Cr˘aciun, Mihut, and Woldegiyorgis (2019).

1

29

30

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION ●

Less important in emerging and developing economies, and more of a particular strategic concern among developed economies.

In the past decade, however, one can observe a reaction to these trends. While mobility is still the most dominant factor in internationalization policies worldwide, there is increasing attention being paid to internationalization of the curriculum at home. There is also a stronger call for comprehensive internationalization, which addresses all aspects of education in an integrated way. Although economic rationales and rankings still drive the agenda of internationalization, there is more emphasis now being placed on other motivations for internationalization. For example, attention is being paid to integrating international dimensions into tertiary education quality assurance mechanisms, institutional policies related to student learning outcomes, and the work of national and discipline-specific accreditation agencies. This is reflected in the updated definition of internationalization (which purposefully built on a definition for the phenomenon articulated by Jane Knight, 2004) that was put forward in a study for the European Parliament: “The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff and to make a meaningful contribution to society” (de Wit, Hunter, Egron-Polak, and Howard, 2015: 29). And internationalization, as described by Jones and de Wit (2014), has become more globalized, and both regional, national, and institutional initiatives are developed in the emerging and developing world: “In the current global-knowledge society, the concept of internationalization of higher education has itself become globalized, demanding further consideration of its impact on policy and practice as more countries and types of institution around the world engage in the process. Internationalization should no longer be considered in terms of a westernized, largely Anglo-Saxon, and predominantly Englishspeaking paradigm” (Jones and de Wit, 2014: 28).

LITERATURE REVIEW OF NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION STRATEGIES AND POLICIES More attention has recently been paid to internationalization in the agendas of national governments such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Over the past five years, several studies by the British Council (2016; 2017), the British Council and DAAD (2014), Helms et al. (2015), the European Parliament (de Wit et al., 2015), Cr˘aciun (2018a), and Perna et al. (2014) have looked into NTEISPs, and have generated a series of analyses, overviews, rankings, and recommendations on them. So far, no comprehensive analysis and typology has been provided, and less attention has been given to low- and middle-income countries with respect to NTEISPs. In recent years, internationalization has shaped education at all levels across the world at an accelerated pace. In light of increased student and staff mobility, the increased presence of branch campuses and international providers, and increased competition for international talent, tertiary education institutions and national governments are mobilizing to both leverage and steer internationalization. National tertiary education internationalization strategies and plans represent the most tangible and direct attempts by governments to play an active and decisive role in relation internationalization, but there are substantive differences in their approaches, rationales, and priorities.

INTERNATIONAL MAPPING OF NTEISPS

31

Meanwhile, new definitions and understandings of internationalization have given way to a new research agenda. Since the definition of higher education internationalization has been reworked to include the specification that internationalization is a planned activity, and not something that “just happens” to higher education systems or institutions, there has been a trend towards examining national involvement in steering the process (Cr˘aciun, 2018c). A survey of NTEISPs provides important lessons about the systemlevel arrangements meant to advance internationalization and go beyond seeing the process as a by-product of globalization. These lessons become crucial in a policy-making environment striving to learn from best practices and develop evidence-based policies (Cr˘aciun, 2018c). A worldwide census of explicit NTEISPs carried out by Cr˘aciun (2018a) reveals that only 11 percent of countries have an official strategy for internationalization, most having been adopted in the last decade. Such strategies have been developed predominantly by developed countries—three in four NTEISPs come from members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). European countries have taken the lead in promoting strategic thinking about internationalization at the national level— two in three NTEISPs come from this world region (Cr˘aciun, 2018a), and programs such as Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 have led to further regional harmonization of higher education systems (British Council, 2017). This is not to say that other countries have not taken measures to promote internationalization. In fact, to support internationalization processes, many countries have taken both direct measures (e.g., re-evaluating their visa policies to give preferential treatment to international students and scholars, establishing bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements through memoranda of understanding, and promoting transnational education through free-trade deals) and indirect measures (e.g., supporting internationalization in political discourses and giving universities autonomy to pursue internationalization activities). Nevertheless, explicit NTEISPs ensure consistency between direct and indirect policy measures and provide a clear signalling of government commitment to internationalization. In other words, NTEISPs move higher education internationalization “from the periphery to centre stage” (Cr˘aciun, 2018b: 8). More in-depth, large-scale research on the focus—in terms of rationales and priorities—of NTEISPs is needed to get a better understanding of what is actually done to promote internationalization and the effectiveness of the measures taken (Cr˘aciun, 2018c). As evidenced by a systematic literature review of rigorous research from the last twentyfive years on transnational cooperation in higher education, there are significant economic and non-economic benefits for societies, institutions, and individuals arising from internationalization (Cr˘aciun and Orosz, 2018). Benefits for which there is solid evidence include more and better research publications and patents, better foreign language proficiency and employment prospects for internationally mobile students, positive attitudes towards open borders and democracy, strengthened research and teaching capacity, and increased attractiveness of collaborating universities to foreign academics (Cr˘aciun and Orosz, 2018). However, it is unclear how effective explicit NTEISPs are in bringing about these benefits. Because many of these national strategies have come about recently, little research has been carried out to gauge their results. Nevertheless, research on policy texts of NTEISPs has consistently singled out international student mobility as a priority for a majority of governments (British Council, 2017; Cr˘aciun, 2018c; Perna et al., 2014) and data show that almost half of international students worldwide in 2013 were hosted by countries that have explicit NTEISPs (Cr˘aciun, 2018a).

32

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Literature, as well as surveys, makes clear that the main focus in internationalization strategies and plans is still at the institutional level. Indeed, institutions operate in many cases without a national plan in place. Where national plans do exist, institutions may operate in conflict or in alignment with the national agenda. An NTEISP can serve as a catalyst or a drag on internationalization processes but is mostly seen as a highly positive element for the advancement of internationalization. Specifically, NTEISPs set internationalization priorities, allocate important resources to meet internationalization goals, and can ensure continuity of efforts between successive governments (Cr˘aciun, 2018b). They align internationalization with other key national priorities, such as economic growth and national security. They incentivize institutions and individuals to assist in meeting national strategic goals through internationalization. In short, national internationalization strategies and plans offer not only a good overview of the manifestations of internationalization, but also shape key action. However, it would be a misconception to assume that NTEISPs have common rationales and approaches to internationalization. Differences exist between and among high-income, low-income, and middle-income countries with respect to their policies and practices. Also, there are differences in explicit and implicit policies and practices, with some countries having well documented plans and others have no plans but well-defined activities. In addition, different stakeholders can be identified in the operationalization of NTEISPs. A typology of NTEISPs can improve transparency between and within higher education systems (Cr˘aciun, 2015), promote synergies through coordination, and ultimately increase the impact of these efforts (Helms et al., 2015). Developing a typology of NTEISPs requires identifying rationales, stakeholders, and organizational, programmatic, and geographic priorities. The case studies in this report provide input for the development of such a typology, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries which have become active actors in the field of higher education internationalization in recent years (European Parliament, de Wit et al., 2015). Overall, the literature points to several key indicators that can be used to guide more systematic thinking about national internationalization policies: ●

●

●

●

Involvement: Government involvement can be direct (i.e., through explicit policy documents to advance internationalization and by earmarking funds to be invested in pursuing this objective) or indirect (i.e., by supporting internationalization at a discursive level and allowing universities to pursue internationalization, but at their own expense). Stakeholders: Stakeholders may come from a wide ecosystem of actors related to tertiary education, including ministries (such as education or foreign affairs), other national agencies, the private sector, international organizations, regional bodies and institutions, etc. History: While there is a long tradition of indirect government support for internationalization, more direct and strategic actions, policies and plans have only appeared more recently (Cr˘aciun, 2018a). Geographic focus: In general, there is an evolving regionalization of internationalization in which European policies are taken as a best practice example (de Wit et al., 2015). Moreover, when looking at a global picture, national internationalization strategies are prevalent in Europe, but not so much in other world regions (Cr˘aciun, 2018a).

INTERNATIONAL MAPPING OF NTEISPS ●

●

33

Tactical focus: Some strategies are rather generic and others that have specific focal points or action lines that frame the scope of activity or interest (for instance inbound or outbound mobility). Effectiveness: In terms of effectiveness of national policies, little is known. This can be explained by the fact that the most policies are quite recent so there are few, if any, studies assessing the effectiveness of such instruments. Thus, the evidence is usually anecdotal or reliant on quantitative measures related to internationalization abroad (i.e. international student mobility).

LOW- AND MID-INCOME COUNTRY STRATEGIES AND POLICIES Recent publications have given more attention to emerging voices and perspectives (de Wit, Gacel-Ávila, Jones, and Jooste, 2017) and next generation insights (Proctor and Rumbley, 2018). As Fanta Aw, in her foreword to de Wit et al. (2017) states, “It is important for internationalization efforts to remain contextualized and rooted in culture, place, time and manner” (Aw, 2017: xxii). That is why it is important to study the way not only institutions, but also national governments, in low- and middle-income countries are responding to the need for internationalization. A mapping exercise of ten of these countries reveals the following (Table 3.1). Some key findings from the mapping exercise can be identified as follow: ●

●

●

●

●

There is a divide between countries with explicit and implicit NTEISPs but, with the exception of Ethiopia and UAE, all countries have some form of explicit policy on internationalization in higher education, while in all countries one can also find implicit references to internationalization in their education and/or foreign relations policies. There is a divide between countries with policies directly focused on internationalization and those in which it is one element of a broader policy and plan, but surprisingly seven out of the twelve countries have a specific stand-alone policy for internationalization, and five out of these seven even have a strong policy orientation. All countries have embedded internationalization in their overall national education and/or foreign relations policies, although in many cases in rather generic terms with little action. An exception is Colombia, where the ministry of education directly, and through the national accreditation agency, sets targets and indicators. National governments are leading actors for internationalization in all countries, and in four cases (Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Malaysia) national governments are quite strong actors. South Africa offers an example of a national policy that is defined by the national government but with institutions of higher education explicitly named as the key actors. Overall, one can describe the process for operationalizing NTEISPs as rather top-down. In some countries there is a lack of clear national plans, and institutions are left to provide direction (as in Ethiopia and Egypt); in others, it is primarily the Ministry of Education, or other ministries, or a combination of ministries, that are

x x x x x

xx

x

xx

xx

xx

xx x

x

xx x

x x

xx xx

x x x x

xx

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x x xx x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

*Note: An “xx” designation denotes that this specific policy characteristic is especially “strong” or evident in the particular NTEISP or national context. ** Note: South Africa’s internationalization policy is currently under review.

United Arab Emirates

xx

South Africa**

xx x

Singapore

x

Malaysia

x x x

x

Kazakhstan

xx

xx

India

x xx

x

Ethiopia

xx x

Estonia

xx

Ecuador

xx

Egypt

Approaches to policy articulation • Implicit focus on internationalization • Explicit focus on internationalization Approaches to policy formulation • Stand-alone policy for internationalization • Internationalization policy embedded in a broader policy Key actors • National governments/ministries • Non- or quasi-governmental actors • Higher education institutions • Foreign governments • International organizations Geographic priorities • Explicit geographic focal points

Case countries

Colombia

Policy characteristics

Brazil

34

TABLE 3.1 Mapping national internationalization strategies

x

x x

35

Priority action lines • Incoming student mobility • Outgoing student mobility • Incoming academic staff/faculty mobility • Outgoing academic staff/faculty mobility • Visa and immigration processes • International student/faculty services • Program and/or institutional mobility (includes cross-border and transnational education, educational hubs, international branch campuses, joint and dual degrees, online delivery) • Research and publications collaboration • Joint doctoral supervision • Partnerships, networks, and consortia • Internationalization of the curriculum (includes approaches to teaching and learning) • Internationalization at home • Requiring or encouraging teaching in non-local languages • Requiring or encouraging foreign language study or proficiency • Leveraging diaspora and/or internationally educated returnees • Facilitating employment for international students and international graduates • Enhancing quality and/or aspiring to international quality standards • Aiming to develop world-class universities

Brazil x

x xx

Colombia x

x

x x

x

x

x x x x

Ecuador x

x

x

x

Egypt x

x

x

x x x

x

x x x x

Estonia x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x x

x x x x

x

x x x x

Ethiopia

Case countries

x

xx

India

Policy characteristics Kazakhstan x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x x x x

Malaysia x

x

x

x

x

x x x xx

xx xx

Singapore x

x

xx

x x x

South Africa** x

x

x

x

x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x x x

United Arab Emirates

36

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

involved. These actions may also be characterized by a combination of initiatives of national and institutional stakeholders (as in Colombia, for instance). ●

●

●

●

●

Most countries provide explicit geographical focus points and, in most cases, these are high-income countries in the developed world, i.e., South–North oriented. But a South–South trend can also be observed, from low-income to middle-income countries—for instance in the cases of India, Malaysia, and South Africa, and a focus on neighboring countries in Africa. There is a divide between countries focusing on incoming mobility (India, for instance), on outgoing mobility (Brazil, for instance), and two-way mobility. Most strategies focus on student mobility, and to a lesser extent on scholar mobility and transnational education (TNE) programs. Estonia is the only country with a more comprehensive approach, supported by European programs. Research and publications collaboration; partnerships, networks and consortia; and enhancing quality and aspiring to international quality standards, are quite common in national policies. Internationalization at home and of the curriculum, as well as national and foreign language policy, are rather marginal focal points in national policies. There is very little evidence that NTEISPs are designed with the goal of advancing social justice, inclusion, and equity objectives. Leveraging internationalization to meet the needs of historically marginalized and/or underrepresented populations does not appear to be a priority in any of the cases examined for this study.

What can we conclude from these findings? We can observe that low- and middle-income countries are becoming more active in defining national policies for internationalization, and on South–South cooperation, breaking in this way the “westernized, largely AngloSaxon, and predominantly English-speaking paradigm,” as mentioned by Jones and de Wit (2012). But serious caution has to be expressed about this trend. There is much copying of the Western paradigm in the strong focus on mobility, on reputation and branding, and on South–North relations. There is also little continuity in their national policies, due to political and economic factors, for instance in Brazil. The NTEISPs of low- and middle-income countries appear to sustain through their scholarship schemes and terms, their geographic focus and partnerships in research and education, and the dominance of high-income countries. More attention to regional cooperation, as is emerging for instance among ASEAN countries, more South–South networking and partnerships, and a stronger focus on internationalization of the curriculum at home are needed to break the high-income paradigm in internationalization, and to develop policies and actions that build on the local, national, and regional context and culture of each country.

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the report on National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs), the following recommendations are given: ●

NTEISPs should not be developed and implemented in isolation from broader strategies for tertiary education and socio-economic development; rather, their

INTERNATIONAL MAPPING OF NTEISPS

37

rationales should be driven by, and firmly embedded in, the socio-economic and tertiary education context of the country. ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

NTEISPs, ideally, should not be single-issue focused (such as recruitment of international students, outbound mobility of students, or increasing performance in rankings); rather, they should have a broader comprehensive approach, with integrated action lines that address aspects of both internationalization abroad and internationalization at home, as well as the interaction between these two dimensions. NTEISPs should take into account the international dimensions of all three core functions of tertiary education—research, education, and service to society—and consider how each of these dimensions can contribute to the strengthening of the other two. NTEISPs should address not only the potential benefits of internationalization, but also potential obstacles and risks associated with this process, and incorporate actions aimed at minimizing obstacles and mitigating risks. NTEISPs should clearly address the matter of how to strengthen the professional, academic, and “soft” skills of students. Attention should be paid to enhancing both intercultural and international competences to support students’ employability and citizenship development. NTEISPs should pay careful attention to national policies related to language and culture associated with tertiary education. These are important concerns in a globalized knowledge society and economy, where English is the dominant language of communication in research, but also increasingly in education. NTEISPs should attend thoughtfully to matters of social justice and equity. For example, when framing geographic priorities, national policies and plans should not only focus on South–North relations and partnerships but should also strengthen South–South collaboration. The needs of historically marginalized and underrepresented domestic populations should also be carefully considered in the design and implementation of NTEISPs. NTEISPs should look at the regional context of their internationalization policies, as regional policies for harmonization of tertiary structures and related support mechanisms offer important ways to enhance the quality of tertiary education in the national context (the European Higher Education Area and ASEAN provide important examples here). NTEISPs need to be based, both in their creation and implementation, on the active involvement of a wide range of stakeholders: a range of national ministries, tertiary education institutions and their associations, student and staff organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector.

REFERENCES Aw, F. (2017). Foreword. In de Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Jones E., and Jooste, N., The Globalization of Internationalization, Emerging Voices and Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp. xxi–xxiii.

38

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

British Coucil (2016). The Shape of Global Higher Education: National Policies Framework for International Engagement. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org/education/IHE British Council (2017). The Shape of Global Higher Education: International Mobility of Students, Research and Education Provision. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org/ education/IHE British Council and DAAD (2014). The Rationale for Sponsoring Students to Undertake International Study. An Assessment of National Student Mobility Scholarship Programs. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/e002_outward_mobility_ study_final_v2_web.pdf Cr˘aciun, D. (2015). Systematizing internationalization policy in higher education: Towards a typology. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 15(1): 49–56. Cr˘aciun, D. (2018a). National policies for higher education internationalization: A global comparative perspective. In Curaj, A., Deca, L., and Pricopie, M. (eds), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 95–106. Cr˘aciun, D. (2018b). Navigating national internationalization policies: Moving internationalization from the periphery to centre stage. Forum. Amserdam: European Association for International Education. Cr˘aciun, D. (2018c). Topic modeling: A novel method for the systematic study of higher education internationalization policy. In Rumbley, L. and Proctor, D. (eds), The Future Agenda for Internaitonalization in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 102–113. Cr˘aciun, D. and Orosz, K. (2018). Benefits and Costs of Transnational Collaborative Partnerships in Higher Education. European Expert Network on Economics of Education. Retreived from: http://www.eenee.de/eeneeHome/EENEE/Analytical-Reports.html De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Egron-Polak, E., and Howard, L. (eds) (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels: A Study for the European Parliament. De Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J, Jones E., and Jooste, N. (2017). The Globalization of Internationalization, Emerging Voices and Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. De Wit, H., Rumbley, L.E., Cr˘aciun, D., Mihut, G., and Woldegiyorgis, A. (2019). International Mapping of National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs). CIHE Perspectives no. 12. Boston College Centre for International Higher Education, and World Bank. Helms, R. M., Rumbley, L.E., Brajkovic, L., and Mihut, G. (2015). Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs. CIGT Insights. doi: 10.13140/ RG.2.2.12513.51044 Jones, E., and de Wit, H. (2012). Globalization of internationalization: Thematic and regional reflections on a traditional concept. AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3: 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1353/aud.2012.0012 Jones, E. and de Wit, H. (2014). Globalized internationalization: Implications for policy and practice. IIEnetworker, Spring, 28–29. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, rationales and approaches. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Perna, L.W., Orosz, K., Gopaul, B., Jumakulov, Z., Ashirbekov, A., and Kishkentayeva, M. (2014). Promoting human capital development: A typology of international scholarship programs in higher education. Educational Researcher, 20(10): 1–11. Proctor, D. and Rumbley, L.E. (2018). The Future Agenda for Internationalization in Higher Education, Next Generation Insights into Research, Policy, and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.

SECTION I

Asia Pacific

39

40

CHAPTER FOUR

Introduction to Asia Pacific Chapters FUTAO HUANG AND ANTHONY R. WELCH

INTRODUCTION Like many other regions, internationalization of Asia and the Pacific is a dynamic process. And it is by no means new: academic and cultural exchange activities were carried out within Asian countries in ancient times, and the influence of China on other Asian countries, in both current East and Southeast Asia, was profound and palpable (Welch 2010, 2011, 2019). There is little doubt that several Asian countries like Japan and China established their modern universities or higher education systems in the nineteenth century by basically modeling them on prevailing Western ideas and standards, especially those of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As a series of British colonies, it is no surprise that the formation of modern Australian universities was also significantly impacted by UK institutional and ideological patterns at the time (Pietsch 2013, Welch 2020). International activities such as dispatching domestic students and researchers to these Western countries, introducing Western academic norms, standards, textbooks, and curriculums, and inviting faculty members from Western countries to the Asian countries played a decisive role in the process of modernization of higher education in the region, as Meiji Japan most strikingly illustrated from around 1868. In a major sense, the one-way internationalization of higher education or Westernization could be considered as illustrating the onset of the internationalization of higher education in most Asian countries and Australia. The two World Wars, and especially the Cold War, largely shaped the fundamental characteristics of internationalization of higher education in Asian countries. For example, internationalization of higher education in the region can in practice be divided into at least three types. The first type includes those countries like Japan and Korea, which were more impacted by US ideas and institutional forms. The second type refers to countries that had been colonies of the UK, such as Australia, India, and Malaysia. The third type includes China and Kazakhstan, which were substantially affected, at various times, by the former Soviet model (Hayhoe and Orleans 1987). By the late 1970s, international activities were more undertaken within each group separately: almost no academic and cultural exchange activities were carried out or emphasized between different country groupings. In other words, internationalization of higher education was characterized by a more vertical form, rather than a horizontal one at regional level. Clear examples are the Americanization of higher education in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan since the late 1940s and the introduction of almost all aspects of higher education from the former Soviet Union 41

42

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

to China in the early 1950s. The most important reason for this was that the internationalization of higher education in the region during the Cold War period was primarily dominated and stimulated by various ideological and political factors. Affected by both global and domestic factors, substantial changes have occurred in internationalization of higher education, in many countries, since the 1990s. The major Asian countries and Australia are no exception. It is generally acknowledged that key drivers affecting internationalization of higher education at a global level include massification of higher education, marketization of higher education, and enhancing the global competitiveness of national higher education systems. However, domestic factors vary considerably, according to different national and social contexts in the region. For example, compared with other Asian countries, in both Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK), the demographic decline in the number of 18-year-olds has become one of the most critical factors affecting their internationalization of higher education. Because private universities account for nearly 80 percent of the total, in both student and institution numbers, and the operation of these private universities largely depends upon tuition and fees charged to students, they are often the first to be affected (Levy 2010). In Kazakhstan, the building of a new higher education system and formation of a renewed national identity after its independence from the former Soviet Union appears to have greatly influenced its approaches to internationalization, notwithstanding a significant legacy that is more evident among the older generation of academics. From a comparative perspective, some similarities and differences can be clearly identified in the internationalization of higher education between China, Japan, India, Kazakhstan, Korea, and the countries of ASEAN in recent years. Points in common include, first, internationalization of higher education has played an increasingly important role in improving the quality of teaching, learning, and research activities, spreading the international status of national higher education, and building world-class universities, especially since the emergence of several global university ranking tables in the early 2000s. Indeed, it is no surprise that the first of these emanated from China—the highly regarded Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), developed by colleagues at Shanghai Jiaotong University, with the aim, at least in part, of benchmarking Chinese universities’ performance against their international peers (ARWU n.d.). In other words, internationalization of higher education has been widely used to be one effective means to enhance the academic excellence and competitiveness of national higher education systems, and leading universities, in the region. Second, it seems that much closer and more direct collaborations and partnerships have been built up between government and higher education institutions or academia in facilitating internationalization of higher education in these countries. While national governments still maintain a strong leadership and impose various regulations on higher education institutions, individual universities are delegated with more authority and autonomy to create institutional strategies of internationalization, and be engaged in, international activities based on their missions and goals. As ever, this is not the proverbial level playing field—in Japan, key national universities were selected by the government as flagships for internationalization, while in China the top-tier, world-class universities have major advantages in attracting international students and staff, relative to lessrenowned institutions. Of two such elite institutions, for example, Peking University enrolled over 6,700 international students in 2018, while Zhejiang University had more than 7,000 international students, the majority of whom were in degree programs (largely in STEM).

INTRODUCTION TO ASIA PACIFIC CHAPTERS

43

Third, compared with any previous phases, a far wider variety of activities of internationalization of higher education have been implemented in the selected countries. They include not only the traditional activities of cross-border movement of students, faculty members, researchers, scientists, and educational curriculum, but also newly emerged transnational higher education activities like jointly operated academic programs and campuses, and distance teaching and learning via the internet, in collaboration with other countries or universities abroad. Fourth, despite more collaborations, there has also been an increased competitiveness of national higher education in the region in terms of attracting inbound international students, researchers, educational programs, and off-shore campuses, and raising the global presence and reputation of national higher education institutions (Huang, 2003a). Fifth, the dimensions of internationalization of higher education in the case countries have been considerably expanded geographically, culturally, and ideologically. While international exchange and collaboration between all case countries have been greatly strengthened at a regional level, more cooperative efforts have been made by China, Japan, and Korea to develop a new form of internationalization of higher education especially in the exchange of students and recognition of academic credits, certificates, and degrees, exemplified in the Campus Asia program, instituted in 2011 (Campus Asia, n.d). Further, while the traditional academic and cultural links between Australia, Europe, the UK, and the United States; India and the UK; Japan and the United States; and Korea and the United States are still in place, stronger links and new partnership between China and its neighbors, in both Central Asia and Southeast Asia, have been built, based on the New Silk Road initiative, especially since 2013. Sixth has been the extension of English as a major factor in the internationalization platform across the region. In an effort to become more competitive, and to attract a wider range of students, private universities in Malaysia, for example, have begun offering a range of programs in English (something that their public competitors are largely prevented from doing). Another example is the Ministry of Education in China mandating in 2001 that 10 percent of university subjects should be taught in a foreign language (usually English). In practice, the top-tier universities were more able to comply and offered salary incentives to academics who were able to teach in English (Huang, 2003b, 2006). Finally, while the six case countries attach importance to collaborating with the UK and the United States and generally accept influences from their academic ideas and practices, almost all of them have formulated national policies or strategies to build world-class universities and are making strides in establishing regional hubs or centers of excellence. In short, all the case countries have been trying to move from the peripheral parts of the center of excellence to become at least the regional center of excellence. It can be said that East and Southeast Asia represent the most dynamic new region for the development of internationalization, worldwide, with the growth of major new competitors such as China, Singapore, and Malaysia in the last decade or so. There are at least two major differences in the internationalization of higher education between the case countries that are both obvious and considerable, however. First, the approaches to internationalization of higher education vary according to the case countries. For example, in China, despite a rapid increase in the numbers of nongovernment sectors or private universities (minban and duli xueyan in Chinese) and their growing importance in the national higher education system, more support and concentration has been provided to and placed on the internationalization of public universities, especially those leading national universities founded and administered by

44

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

the Ministry of Education and other national ministries and departments. These national universities enjoy more favorable policies and generous funding from the central government and local authorities to undertake international activities of accepting inbound international students, conducting internationally collaborative research projects, jointly running transnational academic programs, and even exporting educational services to other countries by partnering with foreign universities in developing Confucius institutes, and developing branch campuses abroad, such as Xiamen University, Malaysia (XMUM n.d.). In contrast, in both Japan and Korea, despite quite limited numbers, private universities with a long history and high social and academic prestige (such as the universities of Waseda and Keio in Japan and the universities of Korea and Yonsei in Korea) are also supported and intensively funded by central governments. Therefore, distinctive approaches to internationalization can be identified among the selected countries. China provides a typical approach to internationalization of higher education by primarily implementing and strengthening international activities in its public universities; whereas in Japan and Korea, the central governments also take into consideration the approaches to internationalization of higher education made by private universities and their contributions to the overall internationalization of national higher education. With respect to approaches to internationalization of higher education, while national universities are more concerned with internationalization of research and doctoral education and training, private universities generally place a greater focus on internationalization of teaching and learning. Second, the focus or main activities of internationalization of higher education seems to vary, depending on the country. Compared with other case countries, China has devoted more efforts to improve the quality of its research and build world-class universities through internationalization, due to the fact that its higher education institutions were traditionally merely concerned with producing manpower for national economic development and socialist construction, and did not undertake any research activities. In Australia, attracting inbound international students has become one of the most important means of generating university revenues. In Kazakhstan, internationalization of higher education through collaborating with both the Western countries and China has played a vital role in building a new and competitive national higher education system. In both Japan and Korea, while attracting sufficient inbound international students has largely determined the healthy operation of their private universities and colleagues, it is also used to contribute to the formation of centers of excellence and world-class universities. In Korea, recently, more efforts have been made to attract foreign faculty members as well as students, in order to become more competitive in the competitive global higher education system. Similarly, in Malaysia, recruitment of international students is seen as a mark of the maturing of their higher education system although, in practice, it is the private sector which is far more dynamic and entrepreneurial in recruiting international students (Huang, 2007). This Section is mainly concerned with the internationalization of higher education in Central, East, South, and Southeast Asia (China, Japan, India, Korea, and Kazakhstan) with some reference to regional relations with Australia, the only major English language system in the region, and at best a “significant other” in Asia (Welch 2020). As mentioned below, despite differences in degree, the Section addresses the contexts in which internationalization of higher education in each country has occurred in recent years, important factors affecting it, the evolution of internationalization, its key characteristics,

INTRODUCTION TO ASIA PACIFIC CHAPTERS

45

the roles it has played in national higher education systems, and the challenges faced while efforts are made to both internationalize each country’s higher education systems or universities, while at the same time retaining core elements of cultural patrimony. The following chapters, which focus on East and Southeast Asia, illustrate and argue new activities and forms, as well as dimensions, of internationalization of higher education based on the five case countries from East and Southeast Asia. They also include developing relations with Australia, the only major English language system in the South Pacific, with a history of close links to the countries of ASEAN, and to China. Also, the chapters present challenges and pressures that the Asian case countries face while moving towards a further level of internationalization of higher education. Chapter 5, on China, is mainly concerned with how both government and individual universities have made major efforts to facilitate the internationalization progress of Chinese higher education institutions at home and abroad. Based on government policies, national surveys, national statistics, and earlier research, this chapter focuses on student mobility, transnational education and research cooperation, faculty recruitment, the promotion of English-teaching curriculum, and publications in international peerreviewed journals. Further, the chapter argues that there are specific challenges China faces in its internationalization of higher education. Chapter 6, on Japan, focuses on analyzing changes which have occurred in the internationalization of Japanese higher education, rationales for recent policies and strategies, as well as outcomes of internationalization of Japanese higher education, and the main challenges it faces. The main findings are as follows: first, as more diverse and complex factors have affected the internationalization of Japanese higher education in the past decades, the recent internationalization of Japanese higher education differs essentially from those in the previous phases. Second, it has made huge contributions to the formation of modern Japanese higher education, its quantitative growth, qualitative improvement, as well as international competitiveness. Third, government, individual universities, and other stakeholders like industry and business, have been trying to facilitate a further internationalization of higher education. Finally, it is evident that Japan also faces many challenges in its internationalization of higher education. Chapter 7, on Korea, critically evaluates the process of internationalization of the Korean higher education system from a dynamic and systemic viewpoint. The socioeconomic environment changes over time, and the changes happening in Korea over the last few decades have been very substantial. These include the demographic decline alluded to earlier and shared with Japan and Taiwan. In this dynamic environment, policy initiatives by the government and actions by market participants swiftly produce a new socio-economic environment. Consequently, the government policy initiatives and market participant behavior need to, and do, change over time as well. This chapter adopts a more-or-less historical analysis. But it is not merely a report of the history per se. Rather, the emphasis is on understanding the historical trajectory based on major stakeholders’ objectives, incentives, and constraints. Chapter 8 provides an overview of the process of internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan during the three decades of the country’s independence. Beginning with a short description of the higher education system in the country, it then provides an account of the historical development of the process of internationalization, including the description of the main players, rationales for internationalization initiatives, mechanisms, activities, policy documents, funding, outputs and outcomes, and challenges. Future directions are identified at the end of the chapter. In summary, internationalization

46

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

in Kazakhstan has been an important mechanism underlying the process of modernization of higher education. It holds the promise to contribute even more to reforms, if the government of Kazakhstan begins to consider it more strategically, if it starts to track previous successes and failures, and gathers systematic information on lessons learned. In addition, while playing a goal-setting role, the government should ensure greater engagement and initiative in internationalization from universities. At the same time, a greater coordination effort, as well as support for internationalization research is also necessary. Finally, while exploiting the developmental potential of internationalization, the government of Kazakhstan, as well as its higher education institutions, may also benefit from assuming a more critical perspective, recognizing that internationalization is a double-edged sword, that can at times lead to more bad effects than good, in that it may threaten local knowledge, traditions, and national interests. Chapter 9 on Malaysia examines the implementation of policies and strategies of internationalizing higher education in Malaysia in the recent two decades, marked by global and national higher education liberalization as well as various reforms in higher education. The chapter begins by analyzing Malaysia’s higher education system and its policy directions for internationalization within the macro-political and socio-economic context. It then explores the strategies initiated and, in turn, how the programs or initiatives have been implemented and promoted and shaped the discourse of achievement. A critical analysis, based partly on a limited number of empirical studies on the internationalization of Malaysian higher education, is provided to uncover the reality behind the policy rhetoric. The analysis also explores and explains the success and challenges of internationalization affecting the policy implementation. Finally, the chapter concludes with suggestions on measures to address the issues facing Malaysian higher education and ways to re-orientate the Malaysian internationalization agenda from a neoliberal economic framework to a more balanced rationale. Chapter 10, on India, develops a detailed analysis of the relationship between the academic capitalism brought through internationalization and the ideology of the Indian education system. Knowledge, according to the ancient Indian system, consists of two important principles—first, it is limitless, and second, it leads to the holistic development of the self. The chapter also explores these two principles through a review of existing studies and current transformations in the higher education sector in India. The chapter intends to bring about a better insight into the transformations that have affected the internationalization process and suggests strategies to align higher education institutions to their mission. Internationalization in the highly dynamic and diverse Asia-Pacific region is helping to break down the traditional core-periphery model of the West and the Rest. Major new centers in China, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore are attracting bright scholars and students from both the region and beyond, as well as forging important new relations within the region, and helping to develop world-class institutions of higher learning. This “shift to the East” is only likely to continue, and presages the ongoing rise of the Asian century, including in higher education.

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities. (ARWU) n.d. www.shanghairanking.com Campus Asia (n.d.) What is Campus Asia? https://www.grips.ac.jp/campusasia/en/ about/#:~:text=CAMPUS%20Asia%20(Collective%20Action%20for,in%20extending%20 their%20global%20reach

INTRODUCTION TO ASIA PACIFIC CHAPTERS

47

Hayhoe, R. and Orleans, L. (1987) Soviet Influence on China’s Higher Education, Hayhoe, R. and Bastid, M. (Eds.) China’s Education and the Industrialised World. Studies in Cultural Transfer. London, Routledge. Huang, F. (2003a). “Transnational Higher Education: A Perspective from China”, Higher Education Research and Development 22 (2):193–203. Huang, F. (2003b). “Policy and Practice of Internationalization of Higher Education in China”. Journal of Studies in International Education 7 (3): 225–240. Huang, F. (2006). “Internationalization of Curricula in Higher Education Institutions in Comparative Perspectives: Case Studies of China, Japan and the Netherlands”. Higher Education 51: 521–539. Huang, F. (2007). “Internationalization of Higher Education in the Developing and Emerging Countries: A Focus on Transnational Higher Education in Asia”, Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3/4): 421–432. Levy, D. (2010b) The Decline of Private Higher Education. PROPHE Working Paper #16. Pietsch, T. (2013) Empire of Scholars. Universities, Networks and the British Academic World. Manchester Manchester University Press. Welch, A. (2010) The Internationalisation of Vietnamese Higher Education. Welch, A. (2011) Higher Education in Southeast Asia. Blurring Borders, Changing Balance. London, Routledge. Welch, A., (2019) Higher Education in Asia, Rury, J., and Tamura E. (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of the History of Education. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Welch A. (2020) International Academics in Australian Higher Education., Huang, F. and Welch, A. (Eds.) [2020] International Faculty in Asia, Europe and North America. Dordrecht, Springer. Xiamen University, Malaysia (XMUM). www.xmu.edu.my

CHAPTER FIVE

Internationalization in China’s Higher Education Trends, Achievements, and Challenges XIAO HAN AND WENQIN SHEN

BACKGROUND: HIGHER EDUCATION IN CHINA (1949 TO PRESENT) After the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the central government treated education as a political tool to indoctrinate its people and to ensure their political loyalty to the ruling regime under the rule of Mao Zedong. Working under this purpose, the Chinese government strictly regulated higher education (HE) and implemented a centralized educational system. At the time, higher education institutions had no autonomy over the administration, syllabi, curricula, textbooks, enrollment, and allocation of slots in schools and universities (Hao, 1998; Ngok, 2007). Instead, the central government assumed the role of formulating educational policies, distributing educational resources, exerting administrative control, recruiting teaching staff, and deciding curricula and textbooks (Ngok, 2007; Yang, Vidovich, and Currie, 2007). In short, the state “monopolized the provision, financing, and governance of education” (Ngok, 2007: 143). The rigid and inflexible regulations inevitably resulted in the insufficient supply and low quality of tertiary education, which consequently set considerable obstacles for the sustainable growth of the Chinese economy. The HE enrollment rate in China was only at 1.7 percent, much lower than the world average of 12.3 percent in 1980 (UNESCO, 1985). The Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 revealed the importance of HE to the government in post-Mao China. With full awareness of education’s contribution to both economic development and social progress (Ngok, 2007) and the serious shortage of educated labor, the central government issued a series of policies to release its rigid control over HE and to protect “the initiatives and enthusiasm of educational institutions” (Mok and Chan, 2012: 114; see also Hawkins, 2006). The 1980s could be considered “a turning point in government–university relationships in China” (Yang et al., 2007: 579). As Zhu Kaixuan, the Minister of Education in the 1990s, stated: “Education is no longer dissociated from the economy . . . Education is closely linked with the economy and has become an organic component and key content of the plans for economic and social development” (Rosen, 1997: 259). Within this background, the CCP Central Committee released the Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party of China 48

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

49

on the Reform of the Educational System (hereafter the 1985 Decision) in 1985 during the National Education Conference, representing the first critical step towards restructuring Chinese tertiary education. In the 1985 Decision, the central government admitted that strict control over educational institutions had resulted in inefficiency and rigidity of the Chinese HE system. Ten years later, the central government issued the first official law to regulate Chinese HE, the Education Law of the People’s Republic of China, re-emphasizing the pivotal role of HE in the process of Chinese modernization: “Education is the basis of socialist modernization and the State shall ensure priority to the development of educational undertakings. The whole society should be concerned with and support the development of educational undertakings” (National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), 19851). As Zhong (2011) indicated, the policies issued in the 1980s demonstrated the changing ideology perceived by the central government on education, from “an instrument merely to serve proletarian politics” to “a wider conception” (p. 118), which is best expressed by the Report to the 16th Convention of the CCP: Education is the basis for developing science and technology and preparing talents, playing a leading and comprehensive role in modernization. It must be placed in a strategic position and given priority in development . . . Education must adhere to serving the construction of socialist modernization and the people, combined with productive labour and social practice, and prepare socialist builders and successors who have developed morally, intellectually, physically, and aesthetically. —Zhong, 2011: 118 In short, the 1985 Decision clarified that the most important aspect of the HE reforms was “to change the central government’s tight control over institutions, to improve institutional autonomy under the national principles and plans, so that institutions can build up their closer links to industry and other sectors, and foster their initiatives and capacity to meet economic and social needs” (Guo, 1995: 69). As the 1985 Decision claimed, “government control of schools was too rigid and management inefficient; authority should be devolved to lower levels; multiple methods of financing should be sought; the central level would continue to monitor the process and provide basic guidelines” while “subordinate units” could have more power and bear financial costs (Central Committee of the CCP, 1985). Knight (2004) pointed out that internationalization occurs at both national and institutional levels. Universities were accorded more discretion and the national government demonstrated its interest in searching Western models (Huang, 2003), through these efforts in internationalizing its HE system, China’s endeavors have borne fruitful rewards. The remaining part of this chapter discusses the national policies issued from 1978 to 2019 that aimed to facilitate the internationalization of HE. This discussion is then followed by an analysis of institutional internationalization and the efforts exerted by the home campus and global exploration.

For more information, please refer to http://www.gov.cn/banshi/2005-05/25/content_918.htm

1

50

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

NATIONAL PLANS IN CHINESE HE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROGRESS Huang (2003) has divided the development of national policy on the issue of internationalizing the HE system into two phases: 1978 to 1992; and 1993 to 2002. In the first phase, the Chinese government’s emphasis was mainly on sending students and faculty members abroad to seek advanced knowledge, inviting foreign experts to visit and give lectures in China, and encouraging foreign language teaching and learning, especially English, which reflected “the urgent demand for professionals and experts with a good mastery of advanced knowledge and technology from overseas and a desire for learning from English-speaking countries” (Huang, 2003: 226). In the second phase, the focus was on attracting Chinese students and scholars overseas to work domestically with full awareness of the increasing brain drain, and on addressing the requirements of transnational education and internationalization of the university curricula with the aim of cultivating talents within the Chinese territory. With reference to the Brain Drain Index,2 China’s scores fluctuated from 2.93 to 4.07 between 2005 and 2015; with 0 indicating severe brain drain and 10 indicating the absence of a problem. China’s scores mean that its brain drain situation is worse than its Asian counterparts, such as Indonesia (5.93), Singapore (5.73), Thailand (4.88), India (4.87), and Japan (4.49) (World Competitiveness Centre, Institute for Management Development, 2015). Thus, the Chinese government has endeavored to support transnational cooperation, offer scholarships to foreign students, and design policies to attract overseas talents. Since the promulgation of The Advice on Introducing Overseas Talent (MoE, 2007), the phenomenon of talent loss has been relatively reversed. In 2018, the number of students studying abroad was 0.6621 million while, in the same year, the number of returnees reached 0.5194 million. From 1978 to 2018, 3.6514 million out of 5.5710 million Chinese international students chose to return to China (MoE, 2019a,b). The alleviation of the brain drain benefited from the national efforts in actively promoting talent introduction and facilitating the settlement of returnees by offering housing, medical care, social security, and start-up funding services both in universities and enterprises. After China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, two new policies on transnational cooperation were issued by the Chinese government: the “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools” (hereafter the 2003 Regulation; State Council, 2003); and the “Implementation Measures of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools” (hereafter the 2004 Implementation; MoE, 2004a). These policies represent the remarkable progress in the transnational higher education (TNHE) regulations. Through these regulations, the government openly recognized the changing nature of HE (from public good to private or semiprivate commodity), thereby legalizing TNHE as a profitable product and promoting transnational cooperation into thriving development. However, the Chinese government also moved its emphasis from quantity to quality simultaneously, illustrating its ambition in cultivating a high-quality workforce to improve national economic development by importing world-class educational resources. Recognizing the problems, such as repeated introduction of low-quality educational resources and similar cooperation programs 2 Calculated by the International Institute of Management Development (IMD), with the aim of measuring, comparing, and reporting “brain drain” problems in different countries.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

51

concentrating only on certain disciplines (predominantly business, economics, and accounting) over the previous two decades (MoE, 2007), the Ministry of Education released a series of documents during the period of 2004–2007 to re-examine and standardize TNHE, marked by the release of the “Notice on Reviewing Transnational Cooperation Programs and Institutions” issued in 2004 (hereafter the 2004 Notice; MoE, 2004b). The central government redefined the collaborating partners as the overseas and Chinese education institutions and specified the criteria for regulating TNHE. Hence, cooperation activities registered before the promulgation of the 2003 Regulation needed to be reapplied and re-examined for approval certificates, thereby ensuring that their quality could meet the revised demands; otherwise, they would be dissolved. However, this increasingly rigid control cannot be considered as a sign that the Chinese government had withdrawn its support for TNHE. As Huang (2007: 430) stated, “although these programs are strictly regulated by [the] government, their rapid and steady expansion is directly related to the supportive policy of the central government, and this is incorporated as a component of internationalization of China’s higher education.” With the aim of strengthening international communication and cooperation, the “Outline of National Medium and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Planning” issued in 2010 reemphasized the importance of improving the domestic education systems and cultivating students to be competent in managing international business and competitions (MoE, 2010). All these measures highlight the Chinese government’s ambition to transform “the country from an economically strong nation to a country with strong human capital” (Mok and Yu, 2011: 237). Indeed, after the standardization period, TNHE maintained its drastic expansion trend and the numbers of newly approved transnational cooperation programs or institutions underwent another fast increase: 82 in 2011, 164 in 2012, and 220 in 2013 (Figure 5.1). If all levels of transnational cooperation activities (including programs and Sino–foreign cooperation institutions and universities having the status of legal persons or corporate bodies (duli faren)) are included, the number of students enrolled in transnational education programs/institutions was around 0.55 million. Among them, around 0.45 million were in TNHE, representing 1.4 percent of the total students in Chinese HEIs in 2013. By the end of 2016, more than 1.6 million students had graduated from TNHE (Chinese News, 2016). The amount of transnational cooperation has also increased annually, as shown in Figure 5.1.

FIGURE 5.1: Number of newly approved TNHE activities. Source: MoE, 2016, calculated by the authors (2018).

52

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

According to Knight (2004), the national level affects the internationalization process through policy, funding, programs, and regulations while the institutional level assumes the role of the real locality for internationalization. At the national level, a range of strategies is being utilized in various regions worldwide with the aim of increasing the competitiveness of their own HE systems, including creating more open-door policies for educational migrants, branding and re-branding nations as places of opportunity for educational advancement, increasing financial support for foreign students, and commercializing student recruitment (Foskett and Maringe, 2010). One of the Chinese government’s endeavors in internationalizing its HE system is to offer financial support to attract foreign students. For instance, the China Scholarship Council (CSC) has offered various programs, such as the Bilateral Program, with full or partial scholarships, according to the educational exchange agreements or consensus between the Chinese government and governments of other countries, institutions, universities, or international organizations. These support undergraduate and graduate students, as well as visiting scholars. The Chinese University Program provides full scholarship for certain Chinese universities and provincial education offices to recruit excellent international students. Other types of scholarships, such as Great Wall Program, the EU Program, and the ASEAN University Network (AUN) Program, target different student cohorts and permit outstanding international students to study in China without the heavy financial burden.3 The “Advice on Opening Education Sector in New Era” (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and State Council, 2016) went further in reaffirming the government’s goal of promoting collaboration with countries involved in The One Belt and One Road Initiative in talent cultivation through the establishment of the “Silk Road” scholarship and by encouraging Chinese universities to set branch campuses abroad, which led to researchers turning their attention to institutional level internationalization.

INSTITUTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION AND INNOVATION Efforts to internationalize HE can also be observed at the institutional level. A number of universities worldwide have devoted attention to improving their international profiles with the hope of increasing overseas student recruitment and cultivating globally competitive graduates (Foskett and Maringe, 2010). According to Maringe and Gibbs (2009: 85), the highly internationalized universities usually have the following features: ●

An explicit internationalization strategic intent with clearly defined purposes and strategies.

●

An expanding and diversified staff and student international exchange program.

●

A strong presence in the international student recruitment market.

●

●

●

A robust drive for exporting educational services beyond the campus boundaries especially to foreign and overseas destinations. A curriculum development focus that seeks to integrate and international dimension into course programs, in teaching content and pedagogical purposes. Joint research and development activities with international and global organizations.

For more information, please refer to http://www.campuschina.org/content/details3_74776.html

3

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

53

Although nearly all universities have realized the importance of internationalization in this globalized world, the strategies they have adopted differ. Maringe (2010) conducted a study on thirty-seven UK universities and concluded that newly established HEIs were more likely to increase their overseas student recruitment and promote their international teaching programs and curriculum design, while the older ones placed more emphasis on their student and staff mobility and endeavored to cooperate with international partners in research and enterprise. The rationale behind this situation is self-evident; the older universities are more concerned with research whereas new HEIs place more emphasis on teaching. More specifically, the methods that HEIs adopt to improve their internationalization level could be divided into two categories: internationalization at the home campus and internationalization abroad (Knight, 2004). Internationalization at home presents the strategies adopted by individuals or organizations to infuse an international dimension into the internal campus experience, such as redesigning the curriculum with regard to global perspectives and attracting or recruiting more international students and faculty. As the most active units in HE, universities have employed various strategies within their campuses to accomplish their target of high internationalization and consequently improve their reputation in the world. These strategies include the following: ●

●

●

●

Redevelopment of the curriculum to ensure international coverage and focus and relevance for international students as well as “home students” Internationalizing teaching and learning by recognizing different cultural perspectives on learning styles and employing a diverse international staff Providing student services that meet the practical and cultural needs of international students as well as “home” universities Benchmarking educational provision not just against national comparator institutions, but against comparators in other countries (Foskett, 2010: 40).

Meanwhile, internationalization abroad, with regard to the exposure of education institutions to the external world, includes engaging in international partnerships, sending students overseas, and establishing branch or portal campuses in other countries (Knight, 2004). Specifically, internationalization abroad includes the following: ●

●

●

●

●

International field study opportunities Increasing student and staff mobility between universities in different countries, encouraging students to spend time in overseas universities as part of their programs, and encouraging faculty to spend research time working with partner institutions abroad The formal inclusion of an “overseas” element to projects, programs, and research, for example by including establishment of joint teaching programs with overseas institutions. This may include, for example, articulation agreements, joint degree programs or split-site PhD programs Setting up overseas branch campuses, often in partnership with other private or public sector organizations Building research partnerships with overseas universities (Foskett, 2010: 41).

The Ministry of Education has entrusted the China Education Association for International Exchange to conduct an annual survey on the development of the Chinese

54

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

HE system since 2015. The first “Report of Internationalization of Higher Education in China” was issued in the same year. In total, 1,205 HEIs participated in the survey, 556 effective responses were collected, and the respondent ratio was 46.1 percent. The captioned report includes nine first-tier indicators, including: institutional strategy for internationalization, organization, and management, the teaching component, teachers’ and students’ mobility, and component, curriculum and teaching design, science and research capacity, the development of joint-running programs and schools, the enshrinement of Confucius institutes overseas, and international cooperation and exchanges. Of all the items presented in Figure 5.2, nearly 90 percent of the universities’ responses were positive. The attention given to internationalization within the institutions was well demonstrated by their strategic plans at the institutional level, especially in target setting and evaluation criteria development. For the organization and structure perspective, 86.5 percent of the participant universities (556) responded that they had established special offices to facilitate the introduction and application of high-quality educational resources, while 96.4 percent of the HEIs planned to conduct regular revisions of their international development strategies. Project 985 and Project 211 were the most important policy initiatives issued by the central government to promote Chinese universities’ competitiveness. Specifically, Project 211 was launched in 1995 with the aim of enhancing the teaching, research, and management quality through the cooperation of the central government, local governments, and HEIs. From 1995 to 2005, the total investment amounted to 36.83 billion RMB. Realizing the low international rankings of Chinese universities, the central government also initiated Project 985 in 1998, hoping to establish world-class universities and prestigious research-oriented HEIs. This project only includes thirty-nine universities, representing less than 3 percent of nearly 2,000 full-time state universities in China but hosts over 50 percent of doctor candidates, national key disciplines, and state key laboratories. More than half of the academicians of science and technology graduate from these universities. Investments in these institutions have reached 90.476 billion RMB (55.4 billion from the central government

FIGURE 5.2: Institutional strategy for internationalization. Source: China Education Association for International Exchange, 2015, the Report on the Internationalization of Higher Education in China, retrieved from http://www.ceaie.edu.cn/uploads/201604/13/G413381033619098.pdf

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

55

and 35.076 billion from the local authorities) (Ying, 2011; see also MoE, 2012). These two projects were replaced by the current “Double First-Class” Initiative in China. The ratio of international staff and teachers has proved to be an essential aspect of Chinese universities’ efforts in the promotion of internationalization. The ratio of international teachers in the responding HEIs was relatively low, accounting for 1.8 percent of all faculty staff. The inequality can also be observed among different tiers of Chinese universities: while the ratio in Project 985 was 2.9, and 2.3 in Project 211, the data drops to 1.7 percent in other institutions. Although the international faculty does not make up a high proportion of staff in Chinese universities, the government’s attempt to attract overseas talent to return and work in its territory has gained traction. The ratio of teachers obtaining an international qualification (in this case, a PhD degree) was much better compared with the share of introduced foreign faculty (Figure 5.3): 11.8 percent in the universities in Project 985, 7.5 percent in those in Project 211. Other HEIs lag behind, with their overseas PhD holders accounting only for 2 percent. The Chinese government permitted foreign students to study in China as early as 1950. The first cohort of fourteen international students was admitted by Tsinghua University.4 The “Regulation on Foreign Students in Chinese Universities” (MoE, 2000) further opened the door for international students to pursue different kinds of degree or non-degree education in the mainland. The implementation of such policies at the institutional level has been relatively effective. In 2018, 492,185 overseas students from

FIGURE 5.3: Percentage of teachers with an international PhD degree at universities in Projects 985 and 211 and in other HEIs. Source: China Education Association for International Exchange, 2015, the Report on Internationalization of Higher Education in China, retrieved from http://www.ceaie.edu.cn/uploads/201604/13/G413381033619098.pdf For details, please refer to https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/newthu/newthu_cnt/education/edu-3-1.html

4

56

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 5.4: Percentage of English-taught curricula at universities in Projects 985 and 211 and in other HEIs. Source: China Education Association for International Exchange, 2015.

196 countries were studying in China, indicating an increase of 3,013 from 2017 (MoE, 2019a,b). Referring to the data offered by the report, the remaining inequality in the level of institutional internationalization is quite obvious; the ratio of international students in Project 985 universities reached 5.7 percent, while the figure in Project 211 universities was 4.0 percent, and only 1.3 percent in other universities. In addition to the recruitment of international staff and students, HEIs in China have also gradually revised their curriculum design, adopting English as the teaching language to help students become competitive globally. Figure 5.4 shows the ratio of the courses delivered in English to the total number of courses offered by Chinese universities. Considering the advantage enjoyed by Project 985 and Project 211 universities in terms of talent recruitment and introduction, the relatively high proportion of courses taught in English is not unpredictable. Students in key universities, especially 985 ones, generally enjoy the benefit of more opportunities to immerse themselves in the English-speaking environment and thus are better equipped for the global labor market. Transnational cooperation is another important indicator of Chinese HEIs’ internationalization level. Unlike Sino–foreign cooperation universities that depend on the support of national and local governments, the cooperation programs and secondary colleges are initiated mostly by institutions. Specifically, Han’s (2016) definitions of the transnational cooperation categories are as follows: ●

●

Sino–foreign cooperation programs: An agreement made between Chinese universities and foreign HEIs. Students in the programs share facilities in the Chinese partners, are taught by both local and foreign teaching staff, and adopt combined overseas and local learning materials. Sino–foreign cooperation secondary/subordinate (erji) colleges: Secondary/ subordinate (erji) colleges affiliated to the Chinese universities and collaborated independently with foreign HEIs. Students enjoy separate facilities offered by the colleges, are taught by both local and foreign teaching staff, and adopt combined overseas and local learning materials.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION ●

57

Sino–foreign cooperation universities: Joint HEIs are established collaboratively by Chinese and foreign universities. Students enjoy separate facilities and campuses offered by the new HEI, are taught by both local and foreign teaching staff, and adopt almost complete overseas learning materials (except compulsory courses required by the MoE).

The first TNHE category is the Sino–foreign cooperation programs. With the surging number from two in the mid-1980s (Huang, 2010) to 1,105 in 2016 (MoE, 2016a), it represents the largest part of transnational cooperation activities in China. Some of these programs have been entitled to confer both overseas diplomas and Chinese certificates and diplomas while others can only issue a diploma from their foreign partners. The enrollment requirements and the learning period also vary. However, because this cooperation type must affiliate to a certain college in Chinese universities, Sino–foreign cooperation programs are usually criticized for their limited enrollment capacity and the indistinct division of responsibility. Thus, another cooperation type was developed, and some scholars treat it as the transitional type of TNHE (Wang, 2005). The establishment of Yanbian University of Science and Technology in 1992 represents the first appearance of this new cooperation type in China: the Sino–foreign cooperation secondary/subordinate (erji) colleges (even the official website of Yanbian University of Science and Technology calls itself a joint-venture university; it is categorized as a secondary/subordinate (erji) college by the MoE). The number of cooperation programs reached 1,1055 while 63 secondary colleges were established by 2017. Realizing the introduction of world-class educational resources demands not only the input of tangible or intangible assets but also more administrative autonomy, a new cooperation type, the Sino–foreign cooperation university, was established. Marked by the foundation of the University of Nottingham Ningbo in 2004, this new cooperation type has received strong support from both the central and local governments. According to the MoE, Sino–foreign cooperation universities could enjoy the status of legal entities or corporate bodies (duli faren), which permits them to enjoy more autonomy, such as the recruitment of teaching and administrative staff, developing independent enrollment criteria, and selecting or introducing textbooks. After the establishment of the University of Nottingham Ningbo in 2004 (6,808 students in total; with 6,157 undergraduates, 376 master’s, and 275 PhD students), twelve other Sino–foreign cooperation universities have been built or are under construction. They are listed below.

Completed Universities6 ●

Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University

●

New York University Shanghai (2013; around 1,200 students)

●

Wenzhou-Kean University (2014)

There are six programs (two in Heilongjiang, two in Hubei, one in Jiangsu, and one in Liaoning) that have qualified in the re-examination, but they have decided to quit. Thus, the table excludes these cases. 6 Source: The University of Nottingham Ningbo Annual Report (2015): http://www.nottingham.edu.cn/en/about/ documents/unnc-annual-report-2015-v14-bilingual-web.pdf; official website of Shanghai New York University, Admission Information (the total number of registered students was calculated by the author), https://shanghai. nyu.edu/admissions; official website of Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University, http://www.xjtlu.edu.cn/zh/studywith-us/why-study-at-xjtlu; official website of United International College, http://uic.edu.hk/cn/admission/ home/uic/6927-2012-01-10-16-53-41; The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen) Annual Report, http:// www.cuhk.edu.cn/UploadFiles/俉⑟ѝ᮷བྷᆖ˄␡ൣ˅єᒤᐕ֌എ亮.pdf 5

58

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION ●

●

●

●

Duke Kunshan University (2013) United International College (jointly founded by Beijing Normal University and Hong Kong Baptist University) (2005, over 5,000 students) The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen) (2014; over 1,000 students with a long-term aim of 11,000 with 7,500 undergraduate and 3,500 postgraduates) Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business (2003).

Universities under Construction ●

Shenzhen Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT)—Moscow State University (MSU) University

●

Shenzhen Jilin University—The University of Queensland University

●

Guangdong University of Foreign Studies—Lancaster University

●

Guangdong Technion—Israel Institute of Technology

●

Yantai University of Groningen.7

The thriving development of TNHE in China has undergone three generations, as categorized by Knight (2014), from the students moving across borders for education opportunities, to academic programs and HEIs. Student mobility, as the first generation of TNHE, has observed a meteoric rise during the past few years as mentioned earlier, while the education hub, defined as “a concerted and planned effort by a country, zone, or city to build a critical mass of local and international actors to strengthen the HE sector, expand the talent pool, and/ or contribute to the knowledge economy” (Knight, 2014: 19), including both the first- and second wave of transnational activities, has been given increasing attention both by researchers and officers. The most active participants in establishing education hubs, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, and the United Arab Emirates (Knight, 2011) are concentrated in the Asia-Pacific region and represent the main destination of education exportation. China has also joined this competition. Echoing the MoE’s ambition in moving to education output, Peking University, Tongji University, Suzhou University, and Xiamen University have established their own branch campuses not only in Asia but in Europe. Taking Xiamen University as an example, it offers undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral degree training programs in Malaysia on subjects including Chinese language, traditional Chinese medicine, accounting, and computer science, among others. Graduates are awarded the certificate and degree by Xiamen University, which could be recognized by the MoE in both China and Malaysia.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN RESEARCH In addition to the efforts of the national government and the institutions themselves, Woldegiyorgis, Proctor, and de Wit (2018) pointed out that another essential aspect in the 7 Official website of BIT, retrieved from http://www.bit.edu.cn/xww/mtlg/119794.htm, President Hu from BIT, retrieved from http://epaper.gmw.cn/gmrb/html/2015-04/28/nw.D110000gmrb_20150428_3-05.htm?div=-1; Official website of Jilin University, retrieved from http://oic.jlu.edu.cn/index.php?action=subnews_ detailandnid=133andfid=64; People. Cn. http://edu.people.com.cn/n/2013/0507/c1053-21384885.html; People. Cn. http://edu.people.com.cn/n/2015/0115/c220605-26392231.html; Telephone interview in 2016.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

59

internationalization of HE, research, should be considered. The common view that research is inherently international leads to a situation where fewer studies have concentrated on the research work of academic staff and explore whether the national and institutional policies have supported or hindered the greater internationalization of research. Various knowledge centers have developed worldwide, collaborating and competing with each other (Beaver, 2001). The nature of research as internally international should be analyzed from various perspectives including mobility, publication, research collaboration, and other forms of knowledge dissemination (Altbach and Teichler, 2001). While some elite universities have long been supported by governments to improve the internationalization of their research and ensure greater competitiveness (Antelo, 2012), the painful experience in China during the Cultural Revolution, from a different perspective, proves the indispensability of guidance by national policies. As a result of stagnation in Chinese academic research, the number of academic journals decreased sharply from 475 in 1966 to 57 in 1967, 10 in 1967, and zero in 1969 (Dean and Macioti, 1973). The severe reality that only one SCI article was published in 1973 from the entire country does not mean it is incapable of producing quality research but rather indicates separation from international academia (Davidson, Narin, and Carpenter, 1977). The report produced by Kormondy based on his experience of visiting China in 1980 pointed out that Peking University only had 170 professors, with an average age of over 65 out of its 2,700 teaching staff. Under the effects of the Cultural Revolution, most faculty retreated from academic studies (Kormondy, 1982). The re-immersion of China into global academia happened in the era of the Chinese Economic Reform. From 1978 to 1980, the number of SCI articles published by Chinese scholars was 2,457, representing 37.83 percent of Hungarian researchers’ contribution, much lower than that of India (35,322) and America (407,726). However, the turning point occurred in 1990, when the number of SCI articles increased to 7,607, decreasing tremendously the gap between China and India (10,327) (Zhong, 1998; Oleksiyenko, 2014). The increasing trend in China has continued. In 2005, the number of high-citation articles surpassed that of Japan while, in 2009, it equalized with those of the UK and Germany (Xie, Zhang, and Lai, 2014). According to the ranking developed by Leiden University focusing on the subjects of mathematics and physics, Tsinghua University takes first position in the number of high-citation articles in the fields of mathematics, computer science, physics, and engineering with 1,421 productions, preceding Massachusetts Institute of Technology with 1,420 (Flowerdew and Li, 2009). In addition to the achievements made in science, the Chinese government has also focused considerable efforts in promoting internationalization in social science and humanities. In 2011, the MoE promulgated the “Notice on Internationalizing Social Science in Chinese Universities,” with the aim of internalizing higher education in China further and improving its global profile. Higher education institutions have issued a series of policies to award SSCI authors to encourage publications in English. For example, a certain 985 university stipulates that the faculty member should publish in internal peerreviewed journals before he/she can be promoted to the position of full professor. In the “Criteria in Faculty Evaluation” issued in 2012, this university clearly states the importance of SSCI and A&HCI publications in career promotion because the staff without such contributions are only considered for “special reasons” and have to go through a very complicated process (University A, 2012). The outcomes of such efforts are promising: in 2006–2010, around 376,000 social science and humanities scholars in Chinese universities participated in international

60

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

conferences. Moreover, the number of cross-national collaboration projects increased to 2,600; over 15,000 articles were published in international journals; and around 800 works first authored by Chinese researchers have been translated into other languages (Ma, 2011). Although Woldegiyorgis et al. (2018) conclude that the internationalization of research differs from student mobility because the latter is considered to be a management-driven strategy while the former is affected weakly by internationalization strategies formulated by institutions (Trondal, 2010), the situation in China has revealed another facet. The effects of national policies cannot be ignored even though research activities have long been recognized as a principally bottom-up activity driven by individual faculty (Woldegiyorgis et al., 2018). Hence, more empirical research is called for on this increasingly important issue.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The above analysis focuses on the internationalization strategies adopted by the national government and institutions and embeds the background information on Chinese HE internalization development. The survey conducted by the China Education Association for the International Exchange shows that HEIs were not only encouraged by national policies but were also enthusiastic to internationalize themselves in their home campus and abroad. Scholars do believe that universities are attempting to follow the Western model on Chinese soil (Yang, Xie, and Wen, 2018). However, scholars should also pay heed to the emphasis (maybe over-emphasis) on international peer-reviewed journal publications and global cooperation that has taken up a considerable amount of faculty members’ teaching time. This is aggravated further by the clear inclination of giving funding to “hard” sciences, leaving social scientists greatly disadvantaged (Xie, 2017). The inevitable effects of national policies and initiatives are illustrated further by the research outputs contributed by Chinese scholars. Although, in principle, research is a bottom-up individual choice, national guidance is indispensable for its development. When the “neoliberal political agenda” (Singh, 2015: 363) becomes prevalent globally, the nature of education inevitably changes from public good to tradable commodity. Responding to the market’s call, the universities are compelled to train graduates as employable, catering to the needs of economic development and national profile improvement. The emphasis on the more profitable hard sciences is, to some extent, unavoidable. Transplanting and modulating Western styles to cater to the needs of China, especially in the new era when the central government exhibits great enthusiasm in establishing firm connections to the external world, has gradually become a severe problem encountered by both researchers and university administrators. It remains an issue for further exploration of the practical strategies in internationalizing Chinese HE and guiding its development work for the benefit of the nation and its citizens.

REFERENCES Altbach, P.G., and Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1): 5–25. Antelo, A. (2012). Internationalization of research. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 2(1): 1–6. Beaver, D.D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52: 365–377.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

61

Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (1985). The Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party of China on the Reform of the Educational System (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.MoE.edu.cn/publicfiles/ business/htmlfiles/MoE/MoE_177/200407/2482.html. Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and State Council (2016). The General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council issue “Some Opinions on Doing Well the Opening-up of Education in the New Period” (in Chinese). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from http://www.mohrss.gov.cn/ SYrlzyhshbzb/dongtaixinwen/shizhengyaowen/201605/t20160504_239378.html China Education Association for International Exchange (2015). Report on the Internationalization of Higher Education in China, retrieved from http://www.ceaie.edu.cn/ uploads/201604/13/G413381033619098.pdf Chinese News (2016). Over Two Thousand Programs and 0.55 Million Students Enrolled in Sino-foreign Cooperation Activities [in Chinese]. Retrieved April 24, 2019 from http://www. chinanews.com/gn/2016/04-15/7836318.shtml Davidson, F., Narin, F., and Carpenter, M.P. (1977). The distribution of world science. Social Studies of Science, 7(4): 501–516. Dean, G., and Macioti, M. (1973). Scientific institutions in China. Minerva, 11(3): 318–334. Flowerdew, J., and Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1): 1–16. Foskett, N. (2010). Global markets, national challenges, local strategies: The strategic challenge of internationalization. In Maringe, F. and Foskett, N. (eds), Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education. London: MPG Books Group, pp. 35–50. Foskett, N., and Maringe, F. (eds) (2010). Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Guo, Q. J. (ed.) (1995). A Collection of Education Laws in the People’s Republic of China (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing Broadcasting Institute Press. Han, X. (2016). Transnational Higher Education in China: Development Trends, Institutional Autonomy, Student Learning and Policy Implications. Doctoral dissertation. Hao, K. (ed) (1998). Twenty Years of Educational Reform in China (in Chinese). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Chubanshe. Hawkins, J.N. (2006). Walking on three legs: Centralization, decentralization, and recentralization in Chinese education. In Bjork, C. (ed.), Educational Decentralization: Asian Experiences and Conceptual Contribution. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 27–41. Huang, F. (2003). Policy and practice of the internationalization of higher education in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(3): 225–240. Huang, F. (2010). Transnational higher education in Japan and China: A comparative study. In Chapman, D.W., Cummings, W.K., and Postiglione, G.A. (eds), Crossing Borders in East Asian Higher Education (pp. 265–282). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. International Institute for Management Development (IMD) (2015). World Competitiveness Yearbook 2015. Lausanne: International Institute for Management Development. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand, an innovation? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3): 221–240. Knight, J. (2014). International Education Hubs: Student, Talent, Knowledge Models. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

62

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Kormondy, E.J. (1982). The People’s Republic of CHINA revitalizing an educational system. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 14(5): 32–37. Ma, H.Y. (2011). China’s ambition in establishing academic research centres overseas. China News. Maringe, F. (2010). The meanings of globalization and internationalization in HE: Findings from a world survey. In Maringe, F. and Foskett, N. (eds), Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 17–34. Maringe, F., and Gibbs, P. (2009). Marketing Higher Education: Theory and Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Ministry of Education (MoE) (2000). The Regulation on Foreign Students in Chinese Universities. Retrieved April 24, 2019 from: http://www.moe.edu.cn/s78/A20/gjs_left/ moe_850/tnull_557.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2004a). The Implementation Measures of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.MoE.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/MoE/ MoE_162/200408/2544.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2004b). The Notice on Reviewing Transnational Cooperation Programs and Institutions (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/index.php/ default/news/index/11 Ministry of Education (MoE) (2007). The Advice on Introducing Overseas Talent. Retrieved April 24, 2019 from: http://www.gov.cn/ztzl/kjfzgh/content_883641.htm Ministry of Education (MoE) (2010). The Outline of National Medium and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Planning (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www. MoE.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/MoE/MoE_838/201008/93704.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2012). The Report on New Round of Project “985” Contract (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/ s7045/201212/146215.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2015). Report of Internationalization of Higher Education in China. Retrieved from: http://www.ceaie.edu.cn/index.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2016). The Information Platform of Chinese-foreign Cooperation in Running Schools. Retrieved from http://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/index.php/ default/index Ministry of Education (MoE) (2019a). Statistics of incoming foreign students (in Chinese). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from: http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/201904/ t20190412_377692.html?from=timelineandisappinstalled=0 Ministry of Education (MoE) (2019b). MoE: The number of study abroad students reaches 662.1 thousand in 2018 (in Chinese). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from: http://www.gov.cn/ xinwen/2019-03/27/content_5377428.htm Mok, K.H., and Chan, K.K. (2012). The reorientation of higher education: Transnational higher education and challenges for governance in China. In Adamson, B. (ed.), The Reorientation of Higher Education: Compliance and Defiance. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Comparative Education Research Centre and Springer, pp. 113–133. Mok, K.H., and Yu, K.M. (2011). The quest for regional education hub status and transnational higher education: Challenges for managing human capital in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(3): 229–248. Ngok, K.L. (2007). Chinese education policy in the context of decentralization and marketization: Evolution and implications. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(1): 142–157.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

63

Oleksiyenko A. (2014). On the shoulders of giants? Global science, resource asymmetries, and repositioning of research universities in China and Russia. Comparative Education Review, 58(3): 482–508. Rosen, S. (1997). Education and economic reform. In Hudson, C. (ed.), The China Handbook. Chicago and London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, pp. 250–261. Singh, P. (2015). Performativity and pedagogising knowledge: Globalising educational policy formation, dissemination and enactment. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3): 363–384. doi:1 0.1080/02680939.2014.961968. State Council (2003). Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.jsj.edu.cn Trondal, J. (2010). Two worlds of change: On the internationalization of universities. Globalization, Societies and Education, 8: 351–368. UNESCO (1985). Statistical Yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. University A. (2012). Criteria on faculty evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.zju.edu. cn/2012/0428/c5086a268485/page.htm Wang, J.B. (2005). Transnational Higher Education and SFCRS (in Chinese). Jinan: Shandong Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Woldegiyorgis, A.A., Proctor, D., and de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of research: Key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2): 161–176. Xie, M. (2017). Living with internationalization: The changing face of the academic life of Chinese social scientists. Higher Education, 75(3): 381–397. Xie, Y., Zhang, C., and Lai, Q. (2014). China’s rise as a major contributor to science and technology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(26): 9437–9442. Yang, R., Vidovich, L., and Currie, J. (2007). “Dancing in a cage”: Changing autonomy in Chinese higher education. Higher Education, 54(4): 575–592. Yang, R., Xie, M., and Wen, W. (2018). Pilgrimage to the West: Modern transformations of Chinese intellectual formation in social sciences. Higher Education, 77(4): 1–15. Ying, C. (2011). A reflection on the effects of the 985 Project. Chinese Education & Society, 44(5): 19–30. Zhong, W. (1998). Chinese scholars and the world community. In Agelasto, M. and Adamson, B. (eds), Higher Education in Post-Mao China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 59–77. Zhong, Y. (2011). Aligning capacity with needs in the process of massification of higher education in China: Northeast normal university as a case. In Neubauer, D.E. (ed.), Access, Equity, and Capacity in Asia-Pacific Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 115–125.

CHAPTER SIX

Internationalization of Japan’s Higher Education FUTAO HUANG

INTRODUCTION There are numerous definitions of internationalization of higher education as the phrase not only changes over time, but also is nationally-bound or socially-based. Historically speaking, since the medieval universities emerged in Europe, international activities were already carried out. There is little doubt that the purposes, forms, and main activities of internationalization of higher education in the twenty-first century significantly differ from those in the medieval times or the nineteenth century. Further, there exists a huge difference in the understanding of internationalization of higher education in East Asian countries alone. For example, the interpretations of internationalization of higher education in China are not the same as in Japan. This chapter focuses on analyzing changes that have occurred in the internationalization of Japanese higher education, the rationales for recent policies and strategies, as well as the outcomes of internationalization of Japanese higher education, and main challenges it faces. With regard to the organization of this chapter, the next section gives a brief introduction to the most pertinent features of Japanese higher education. It then presents the main changes that have occurred in the internationalization of Japan’s higher education from the historic perspective. The third section discusses recent policies and strategies of internationalization of Japanese higher education, main international activities, and their outcomes. The fourth section addresses key challenges facing Japan. The chapter concludes by presenting the main characteristics of the internationalization of Japan’s higher education from the international and comparative perspectives. Regarding the term ‘internationalization of higher education’, it is widely acknowledged that internationalization of higher education occurred as early as the twelfth century when, in Europe, medieval universities emerged. Its development can be divided into several phases. In each phase, internationalization adopted different forms and its aims varied due to differing contexts or rationales. However, it is also true that the situation in one country differs greatly from that in another country. There are a vast number of explanations that can be assigned to it. This chapter regards internationalization of higher education as the process of undertaking various forms of educational, research, or in a broad sense, academic activities between different countries and societies at a tertiary level. It emphasizes two major components. On one hand, it refers to internationalization of higher education in home institutions, including 64

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

65

internationalization of the university curriculum and integrating an international dimension into education, research and administration; on the other hand, it denotes cross-border mobility of students, faculty, educational programs and institutions, including sending students and faculty abroad and accepting foreign students and faculty (Huang, 2007a).

JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION AND CHANGES IN ITS INTERNATIONALIZATION Japan’s Higher Education Compared to many Western countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and European continental countries, Japanese higher education is characterized by three striking features as follows. First, private institutions, including both universities and junior colleges, account for the largest proportion of all higher education institutions (HEIs). For example, in 2018, the proportion of students in private universities and junior colleges constituted respectively to 73.7 percent and 94.8 percent of the totals. Moreover, the number of private institutions at university and junior college levels comprises 77.1percent and 94.9 percent of the total respectively (MEXT1, 2019a). Second, there is a clear-cut division of labour between national universities, local public universities, and private universities. These three different sectors play different roles and fulfil distinctive functions according to their missions. For example, as the modern Japanese universities were developed on the German research-oriented model, this tradition has dominated Japanese universities, especially the national sector, for a long time. According to the results of the International Survey of the Academic Profession, which was conducted by the Carnegie Foundation in 1992, Japanese faculty completed more scholarly publications than faculty in any of the other countries surveyed. Moreover, approximately 75 percent of Japanese faculty members think that it is important for a faculty member to have a strong record of successful research activity, a proportion much higher than in most of the other countries (Arimoto, 1996). The national universities are expected to facilitate the advancement of basic, applied, and large-scale (with substantial funding, often supported by the national budget) scientific research, and undertake more research activities. Except for a very few private universities, the vast majority of private sector are primarily engaged in undergraduate educational activities. Besides, more of them provide degree programs in humanities and social sciences. As local public universities are established, administered and mainly funded by local authorities, the goals and missions of local public universities place more emphasis on producing graduates who can serve the local economic development and prosperity. Third, Japanese higher education system displays a typically hierarchical structure. Except for very few private universities like Waseda and Keio universities which came into existence in the late nineteenthh century, a majority of national universities enjoy the highest academic and social reputation, relative to the other two sectors. Even within either national or private universities, those national HEIs which were founded before the World War II, normally identified as the former Imperial Universities, even now enjoy a higher academic and social prestige than any other institutions. Below them are numerous

MEXT refers to Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Science and Technology

1

66

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

national, public and private universities which were located in big cities. They are followed by a plurality of provincial public and private universities and junior colleges.

Changes in Internationalization From a historical perspective, focusing on the relationships between Japan and foreign countries in terms of international activities, changes in the internationalization of Japan’ higher education can be split for practical purposes into four major phrases (Huang, 2007b, 2019; Kurimoto, 2017): In the first phase (late nineteenth century - late 1900s), truly, there was a long history of educational and cultural exchange activities between China and Japan, and Japanese education was significantly influenced by China since the Tang dynasty in the early seventh century. By the time when the Meiji government built the University of Tokyo in 1868, there were already several institutions called the Shohei Gakko, the Kaisei Gakko and the Medical School (Igakko), which had formerly emphasized National and Chinese scholarship. Under the guidance of Wakon Yosai (Japanese spirit imbued with Western learning), the government incorporated more Western learning into their curriculums and made them become one part of the Grand School for the new educational system (Ministry of Education, 1980). During the process the impacts of Western ideas and patterns on the formation of the modern higher education systems in Japan are evident and considerable. Earlier research suggests that: “All of the higher education systems considered here have Western roots and use basically Western models. In Asia, as in the rest of the world, the contemporary university is a basically Western institution, tracing their roots to the medieval European universities and shaped by the particular Western power that was the colonial ruler. In the case of Japan, China and Thailand, foreign influences were chosen with independence, but the models were foreign nonetheless.” —Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989: xii. At the time, in addition to the translation of foreign academic books into local languages in Japan, important ways of learning from foreign ideas and patterns of higher education were to dispatch domestic scholars and students to Western countries and invite foreign experts and scholars from different fields to introduce their modern knowledge and technology and work for the national governments in Japan. For example, in the early Meiji era (1868-1912), the central government dispatched many university students abroad, mostly to the U.S., the U.K., France and Germany. In 1876 alone, there were 78 foreign faculty members who were involved in professional and language teaching activities, and in most cases taught in foreign languages other than Japanese (Ministry of Education (Japan), 1992). According to Ebuchi (1997), because Japan made huge efforts in learning from Western countries, it built a modern higher education system based on Germany, France, the UK and the USA. As western ideas and academic norms and conventions exerted profound impacts on the modernization of Japan’s higher education, this period of internationalization of higher education is typically characterized with “the phase of Westernization”. This one-way acceptance of western civilization is merely receptive to western countries by adopting their ideas, values of education and culture, and models of modern universities and colleges, hiring foreign academics and experts, and also sending domestic students and scholars to advanced western countries.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

67

In the second phase (1910s~1945), since the early 1910s when Japan colonized both Korea and Taiwan, the Japanese educational model and conventions were exported to Korea, Taiwan and some South-Asia countries as one control measure in colonizing these countries. In contrast to the previous phase, the primary form of Japan’s higher education during this period consisted of exporting Japanese academic values and standards to Asian countries and areas, while objecting to undertake international exchange activities with western countries, especially with the USA and the UK. For example, after Korea became Japan’s colony in 1910, the Japanese colonial administration closed and took over most of Korean institutions and found the Keijo Imperial University as the sixth imperial university of Japan in 1924. This university has a very short history and only existed until 1946, but it laid a basis on the establishment of the first national university in Korea when it was reformed and changed to Seoul National University. The other is Taihoku Imperial University- the predecessor of National Taiwan University-which was founded by the Japanese colonial administration in 1928. Because this period of internationalization of Japan’s higher education was more influenced by nationalism and emphasized exporting its ideas and academic standards to other Asian countries and accepted inbound international students from these countries based on its policy of colonialism in Asia, in a major sense, internationalization of higher education is more like Japanization - exporting Japanese models to other Asian countries (Huang, 2011). The third phase (1946 1970) of internationalization is characterized by the dominant influences from the USA on many aspects of Japan’s higher education. After WWII, impacted by the US ideas imbued during its occupation of Japan, the country restructured its national higher education systems based on the two main national policies of democracy and massification of higher education which was strongly enforced by the US occupation force. For example, educational subjects based on democracy replaced the former educational materials closely relating to the values of Bushido: nationalism and militarism. Japan realized the massification of higher education and the near-universal access to higher education by building new national and local public higher education institutions and encouraging the expansion of private universities and junior colleges by the end of the 1980s (Tsuchimochi, 1996). Furthermore, because of the introduction of the US general education to all Japanese universities, in which English language and, to a lesser extent, other foreign languages like German and French, became compulsory subjects for all undergraduate students, international faculty, especially from English-speaking countries began to be hired at Japanese universities. With a massification of Japan’s higher education since the 1960s, their numbers have massively expanded, including some programs taught in English in several private universities such as International Christian University and Sophia University. Other international activities include the widespread growth of interest in research and establishment of various academic societies: in particular academic faculty became more research-oriented, engaging in both pure research and applied research (Cummings and Amano, 1977). This period can also be called the phrase of Americanization of higher education in Japan. Since the late 1970s, Japan moved to the fourth phase which is normally viewed as the period of Kokusaika (ഭ䳋ॆ) in Japanese, a literal translation of Japanese word from internationalization in English. Huge and new changes have occurred in the internationalization of higher education in Japan. One of the most important factors affecting these changes is the suggestions made in the OECD report in 1971. In terms of internationalization, the report (OECD, 1971) proposed that Japan should make more efforts in providing foreign language education, encouraging domestic students to study

68

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

abroad, making Japanese educational institutions easier for international students to study in Japanese universities and colleges and opening its academic labor market for international academics wider, and producing graduates or human resources who are not only employed in Japan but also equipped with international perspectives and character. Among several responses to the OECD suggestions in relation to internationalization, one was the Nakasone Plan, named after the then Premier Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone. This national policy was to host 100,000 overseas students by the year 2000. To attain these goals, various efforts have been made at both policy and institutional levels. Since then, almost every aspect of internationalization of higher education, including internationalization of university curricula and even of the academic profession, has been largely affected by the plan. As discussed below, compared to previous phases, the goals, activities, forms, and means of Japan’s internationalization of higher education have become more diversified.

RECENT POLICIES AND OUTCOMES Since the 1990s, in addition to impacts from economic globalization, the knowledgebased society, new public management theories, the market, and massification of higher education, according to Amano (Amano, 2014), specific factors affecting Japanese university changes include a rapid decline of the cohort of 18-year-olds, the economic slump, and relaxation of government control and regulation on higher education. To illustrate, firstly, since 1994, there has been a continual decline in numbers of 18-yearolds. This has exerted a considerable and evident influence on the size and structure of Japan’s higher education, and its internationalization. Due to the steady drop in numbers in the 18 year-age group, it has become increasingly difficult for many small and local private institutions to recruit sufficient new entrants. Many private universities, as well as some national and local public universities, have to explore more diversified and flexible ways of attracting enough students. One of the effective ways is to accept more inbound international students to Japan. This has inevitably facilitated the international mobility of students. Secondly, the growing financial constraints have made government develop numerous policies to liberalize and revitalize tuition and research, many of which have asked universities to be more responsive to the market and competitive in attracting new entrants, including inbound international students, so as to secure the necessary tuition fee income. Thirdly, because of increased global competition and the demands from the market, the Japanese government has implemented a policy of freedom and competition to replace regulation and protection. This has resulted in radical changes in Japanese higher education, including its internationalization. Furthermore, the decrease in the numbers of outbound Japanese students going abroad and decline in the global ranking of Japanese universities are also considered to be two important drivers for the government’s promulgation of new policies. For example, according to the OECD report (OECD, 2016) and the report made by the MEXT (2019b), although the numbers of outbound Japanese students going abroad kept rising rapidly, from 18,066 in 1983 to 79,455 in 2002, and reaching a peak of 82,945 by 2004, it began a continual decline since then. As of 2011, only 57,501 Japanese students went abroad. Regarding the changes in the ranking of Japanese universities, as Figure 1 reveals, the numbers of Japanese universities which were ranked among top 500, 400, 300, 200, 100, and 20 also decreased from 2004-2014. Of many reasons for these changes, it is generally agreed that low percentages of inbound international students and international academics to Japanese

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

69

FIGURE 6.1: Changes in the ranking of Japanese universities in 2004–2014 Source: Academic Ranking of World Universities. Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking.com/arwu2019.html

campuses, publications in indexed journals, internationally co-authored publications, and citations of science papers, etc. all caused this consequence.

Policies and Strategies Affected by all these drivers, since the 2000s, many new and diverse policies of internationalization of higher education have been created and carried out by both government and individual universities. They are not only concerned with accepting inbound international students to Japan and hiring international faculty at Japanese universities which played a central role in its internationalization, but also involved improving the quality and global competitiveness of its teaching, learning and academic performance, providing English-medium degree programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels, allowing more foreign universities to establish their campuses in Japan, etc. More details of these policies can be practically summarized as follows. In terms of educational activities, firstly, in order to level the internationalization of Japanese universities and also improve the proportion of inbound international students of the total, in 2008 the Japanese government implemented a national project of increasing the numbers of inbound international students to Japan from 135,000 in 2013 to 300,000 by 2020. Also, based on various national-level projects such as Campus Asia (MEXT, 2011a), Japan Revitalization Strategy(MEXT, 2013), Go Global Japan (JSPS, 2014), and Inter-University Exchange Project(MEXT, 2011b), the Japanese government aimed at expanding the numbers of domestic students studying abroad from 60,000 in 2010 to 120,000 by 2020.

70

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Secondly, since the early 2002, the Japanese government has begun to revise and deregulate the legislation concerning approval of foreign institutions in Japan and to adopt new strategies for recognizing cross-border or transnational branches and programs. This approval makes it possible for foreign educational activities or service to be recognized by Japanese universities and allows Japanese students to apply to the foreign educational programs or institutions in Japan (Torii, 2006). As to be mentioned later, these polices have facilitated a quick expansion of inbound foreign universities and branch campuses to Japan. Thirdly, in the FY 2012, the Japanese government launched the national project of the promotion of global human resource development. Although the project was initially defined and demanded by big enterprises in the context of an increased global economic competition, it was soon accepted by the government. According to the report by the MEXT (MEXT, 2012), 11 university-wide projects and 31 faculty/school specific projects were selected in the project. An additional budget has been allocated to these designated universities and faculties or schools with an aim of promoting global human resource development through a wide variety of reforms, including designing more appropriate academic programs and restructuring educational, research and administrative arrangements at both institutional and faculty or school levels. Despite an unambiguous phrase of global human resource defined by the government, industry and business, media, and researchers, etc., the goal of the project is to develop global human resources through industry-academia-government collaboration, foster global human resources based on the partnership of universities, enterprises and society, and implement the national project of promoting and cultivating global human resources. Fourthly, as an important means of attracting more inbound international students with high quality to Japan and improve the English proficiency of domestic students, in recent years, the government also required individual universities, especially those which are selected to be intensively funded by the government based on national-level projects such as the “Global 30” project in 2001 and “Top Global University” project in 2014 to provide more English-medium degree programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Regarding research activities, firstly, similarly to countries like China and South Korea in East Asia, the Japanese government also developed national strategies to support several selected universities or disciplines with enlarged budgets to become world-class universities, or world-renowned centers of excellence. To illustrate, in June 2001, the Japanese government implemented the goal of fostering the “Top 30” Universities towards attainment of top global standards. Later, the program was changed into a scheme of cultivating ‘Centers of Excellence in the 21 Century’ (COE21). The central government is supporting the selected units with an expanded budget. It was hoped that the quality of research activity in Japanese higher education can be considerably enhanced and increased international dimensions can be integrated into campus research activities, although the data in Table 1 above seems to indicate limited success. Secondly, a follow-up strategy, the “Global 30” program, was launched in 2009. Its primary aim was to attract 300, 000, namely, to triple the number of inbound international students by 2020. In order to achieve the goal, 13 universities, including seven national and six private universities, were selected to play a central role in implementing the program. For example, in these universities, many more international students were to be accepted, and at least two English-taught degree programs were required to be provided. Thirdly, Japan used to have the largest numbers of research-oriented universities and top universities in Asia. Accordingly, it did not pay the same attention to the impact of global university ranking systems on higher education as China or Korea did by the early

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

71

2000s. Because of the quick rise of both Chinese and Korean universities in global university ranking systems, Japan’s government has also launched several national programs or projects to upgrade its universities and expand the number of its top universities. Much later than both China and Korea, in 2014, the Japanese government issued another national project: the “Top Global University Project”. This project aims to enhance the international compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan. It provided additional financial support for selected universities that were expected to press forward with comprehensive internationalization and university reform. Once more, there are two types of institution in the project. Type A (Top Type, 13 universities) consists of world-class universities with the potential to be ranked in the top 100 according to global university rankings. Type B (Global Traction Type, 24 universities) is for innovative universities that will continue to lead the internationalization of Japanese society, based on continuous improvement to their current internationalization efforts. It was reported that the central government will allocate 7.7 billion JPY annually for selected universities for 10 years (MEXT, 2014). But in practice, funding was limited: according to Yonezawa (2019), “The amount of public funding directly linked to the scheme constitutes only a small portion of the universities’ running costs, at around 0.2% of their annual income.”

Practices and Outcomes Based on earlier research and national statistics, progress made in the internationalization of Japanese higher education is remarkable and evident. They include main points below. Firstly, as the Japanese government has placed a particular emphasis on attracting more inbound international students and presented clearly defined plans recently, there has been a rapid growth in the number of international students in recent years. As Figure 2 shows, there has been a steady, fast growth in the number of inbound international students to Japan since the announcement of the 300,000 target in 2008. As of 2018, its total numbers already reached 298,980, and there is little doubt that the goal could be achieved by 2020. However, as Table 1 indicates, changes in both absolute numbers and percentages of inbound international students vary depending on different sectors of HEIs. Despite a growth in its absolute numbers, the percentages of inbound international students at national universities declined from 24.5 percent to 15 percent during the period. In contrast, both the absolute numbers and proportions of inbound international students at local public and private institutions expanded, as did international enrolments in language programmes. This is especially true in the case of private universities, growing by 10 percent from 2008 to 2018. There are at least two reasons why there has been a quick growth in the proportion of inbound international students in private universities. First, as mentioned earlier, the proportions of both private institutions and students make up for the largest share of the totals, it could accommodate the largest numbers of inbound international students. Second, compared to both national and local public universities, the operation of private universities largely depend on tuition and fees charged from their students. Although the Japanese government subsidizes these private basically according to student numbers, the amount of public funding only accounts for approximately 10 percent of their annual revenues at a national level. Therefore, like other Asian countries such Korea and Malaysia, Japanese private universities have to be more entrepreneurial and dynamic in recruiting international students than either national or local public universities. This is especially true in the case of small private institutions which are not located in metropolitan areas.

72

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 6.2: Trends in number of international students. Source: JASSO (Japan Student Services Organization, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_ student/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2019/04/19/data18_brief_e.pdf Note: “International student” on this statistics is defined as a student from a foreign country who is receiving education at any Japanese university, graduate school, junior college, college of technology, professional training college or university preparatory courses and who resides in Japan with “college student” visa status, as defined in Annexed Table 1 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act.

TABLE 6.1 Change in the number and proportion of international students in Japanese universities National 2008 2018

30,385 44,736

24.5% 15.0%

Local public 2,632 3,994

2.1% 1.3%

Private 90,812 73.3% 250,250 83.7%

Total 123,829 100.0% 298,980 100.0%

Source: JASSO (Japan Student Services Organization) (2008). Result of an Annual survey of International Students in Japan 2008. Retrieved from https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2008/ index.html.

Secondly, there has been a rapid growth in full-time international faculty. According to Huang (2018a), as one response to the OECD suggestions, the number of international faculty at Japanese universities has expanded quickly since the 1980s. In recent years, recruiting international faculty has also been employed as an effective way to enhance the quality and international competitiveness of Japanese higher education. As Figure 3 suggests, from 1980 to 2018, the number of full-time international faculty alone showed fast, continuous growth. Compared to 1979 when there were 940 full-time international faculty (0.9 percent of all faculty), as of 2018, its number amounted to 8,609 (4.6 percent of all faculty).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

73

FIGURE 6.3: Changes in the proportion of full-time international faculty at Japanese universities. Source: MEXT (2019c).

Thirdly, although English-taught programs and courses were provided as early as the end of the Second World War in some private institutions which were founded by religious bodies, very few English-medium degree programs were still provided at Japanese universities in the early 1990s. In general, the English language programs are divided into two types. Degree-conferring courses or programs specially designed for international students at graduate level form one type. The other type refers to courses in English specifically designed for students from North America, Europe and other English-speaking countries at undergraduate level. With the implementation of the Global 30 program in 2008, as noted earlier, attempts have been made by the 13 universities to deliver Englishmedium degree programs. The national survey by the MEXT indicates that, compared to only seven universities and eight faculties in which English-medium degree programs were delivered at the undergraduate level and 73 universities and 139 graduate schools at the graduate level in 1999 (MEXT, 2011c), as of 2015 its numbers increased to 27 universities and 48 faculties at the undergraduate level and 97 universities and 222 graduate schools at the graduate level respectively (MEXT, 2017). Fourthly, the number of foreign branch campuses in Japan have increased. As early as the beginning of the 1980s, many US state universities established their branch campuses in Japan. For example, numbers increased from only 1 in 1982 to 18 in 1990. By 1990 the total existing number had risen to 36. But prior to February 2005, none of these branch campuses of foreign institutions had been accredited by the Japanese government as higher education institutions in accord with the Standards of Establishment of Universities and Colleges. Consequently, credits gained at these branch campuses were not transferable to other Japanese institutions, nor could students graduating from these branch campuses be accepted into higher-level Japanese educational programs. As a result, the number of these branch campuses decreased, now to less than 10. Because of recent policies of relaxation of control on these branch campuses, as of July 2019, three branch campuses from the USA and Russia are accredited and qualified to award Associate Degrees, five branch campuses being established by the USA and China provide

74

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

undergraduate programs, and three from the USA and Canada are approved to offer Master-level programs (MEXT, 2019c). Fifthly, since 2015 soon after Japan started its Top Global University project, it appears that, despite a fall in the numbers of Japanese universities being ranked among top 500 according to the ARWU in 2019 compared to the early 2000s, no sharp decline occurred of Japanese HEIs in the top 20, 100, 300, 400 and 500. Actually, the numbers of those being listed among top 200 rose from 3 in 2015 to four in 2018. It goes without saying that numerous factors affect changes in university rankings and there is no clear evidence showing that the government policies have had such speedy effects on changes in the rankings of Japanese universities. But, at least, it can be said that Japan has basically maintained a relatively stable status of its universities for the last four years. Finally, in terms of changes occurred in changes in the internationalization of Japanese higher education, according to Huang’s research based on two national surveys of institutional leaders who were in charge of internationalization or similar matters (Huang, 2019), these university leaders reported the internationalization of Japan’s universities is on-going, and still highly valued. There was not a clear transition from internationalism to nationalism in Japan in 2008-2017, compared to the USA and the UK. Further, the internationalization of Japan’s universities is not primarily motivated by the market, but exhibits strong non-commercial characteristics. The case study of Japan indicates that internationalization could be undertaken without necessarily being totally driven by neoliberalism, entrepreneurialism or the market in a specific time. Finally, a majority of university leaders believe that the research productivity of Japan’s universities has already reached international standards. This is especially true in the case of national universities, in which research is more emphasized than either local public or private universities in Japan.

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES As discussed above, Japan has accomplished prominent achievements in stimulating and levelling its internationalization of higher education. However, it still faces plenty pf issues and challenges below. Firstly, there are some controversial views regarding the government policy of providing more English-medium degree programs in Japan. For example, some researchers like Kariya and his colleagues (e.g., Kariya and Rappleye, 2010) argued that, Japanese universities are unable to differentiate between the real competition that they are forced to confront and the unreal and unnecessary competition. Further, they emphasized that, as a non-English-speaking country, because of the language barrier and the lack of transparency, for internationally mobile faculty, students, and donors choosing one institution over another, increasing the number of classes taught in English or hiring more foreign faculty in an attempt to improve the university’s global ranking was of little importance. Not only that—for the vast majority of universities, improving international competitiveness in this way has no effect at all in terms of carrying forward the kind of reforms that are really needed. There is a lack of incentives for such initiatives. Secondly, in reality, due to a rapid expansion of inbound international students to Japan in a very short time, which has been directly and strongly driven by the government, the quality of international students, especially those who do not concentrate on their studies but invest more time in doing part-time jobs or even illegal jobs, have increased. Some international students even left their language schools or universities and disappeared within Japan.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

75

Thirdly, as Amano (2014) mentioned, despite a steady growth in the numbers of international faculty to Japan, Japan needs to make more efforts to open up its universities and work positively to welcome more—and more talented—researchers and students from overseas. It also needs to increase the number of courses available in English, the de facto global lingua franca. At the same time, it needs to send more Japanese researchers and students overseas to stimulate their research and improve standards. Fourthly, although clear differences can be found in the understanding of the image of global human resources between individual faculties in Japanese universities, according to the main findings from a national survey of deans of Japanese universities in 2014 (Huang and Daizen, 2014), it seems that the national strategies are carried out at faculty level. Since very few Deans confirmed that they are not proceeding well with fostering global human resources, more efforts should be made by both government and individual universities to provide more budget, produce supporting staff and quality academic faculty members for the cultivation of global human resources. Fifthly, a wider gap has emerged between selected universities and other universities in terms of funding, and social and academic reputation. The national government is focused on trying to increase the international competitiveness and academic excellence of a few select universities. This has facilitated the gradual formation of more rigid hierarchical structure of higher education and research system in Japan. Meanwhile, although Japan is trying to develop the distinctive features of national higher education and research systems, there seems to be an increasing convergence in higher education and research brought about by the desire to climb league tables. This may result in a new dependency culture and the Anglo-American hegemony. Finally, based on main findings from a national survey of the vice presidents’ views on the benefits and risks of the internationalization of Japanese higher education in 2017, Huang and Daizen (Huang and Daizen, 2017; Huang, 2018b; Huang and Daizen, 2018) argued that, as for the risks of internationalization, across the three sectors ‘growing gaps between universities within the country’ appeared as the most frequently mentioned risk (selected by 38.7 percent), followed by ‘overemphasizing the acceptance of international students’ (28.7 percent) and ‘increasing gaps between regions and countries’ (26.7 percent). By contrast, the lowest concern was the ‘decline of quality of education’ (8.6 percent). Further, national public and private university leaders both saw ‘growing gaps between universities within the country’ as the top risk across, while leaders from local public universities feared ‘increasing gaps between regions and countries’ most, followed by ‘growing gaps between universities within the country’ and ‘overuse of English as a teaching language’. A big worry for private universities was ‘internationalization at the expense of staff and students’ other activities’ and ‘overemphasizing the acceptance of international students’. Both research-intensive universities and other universities see ‘the emergence of elitism’ as the number one risk followed by ‘growing gaps between universities within the country’. It is interesting to note that in both types of universities, it appears that ‘standardization of curriculum’ is not a concern.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION As more diverse and complex factors at both global and domestic levels have affected the internationalization of Japanese higher education for the past decades, new changes have occurred in internationalization. These changes have significantly shaped the current internationalization of its higher education. Although the internationalization of Japan’s

76

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

higher education is full of twists and turns, there is little doubt that it has made huge contributions to the formation of modern Japanese higher education, its quantitative growth, qualitative improvement, as well as international competitiveness. Like many countries, despite numerous challenges, apparently, government, individual universities, and other stakeholders like industry and business, have been trying to facilitate a further internationalization of higher education and eventually use it as one of effective means to enhance the quality of Japan’s higher education. Since the 1990s, several initiatives have been introduced in Japan’s internationalization. It has gone beyond simple mobility of international students and members of faculty, and has come to include activities in a more competitive internal environment. They include, inter alia, internationalization of the university curriculum, promotion of cross-border higher education activities, construction of ‘Centers of Excellence’, building up worldclass universities, and more English language programs. Furthermore, compared to many western countries like the USA, the UK, Australia, the internationalization of Japan’s higher education is also characterized with top-down commitment toward the improvement of international competitiveness through internationalization; facilitating internationalization through a close partnership between government, industry and business, and individual universities; raising the level of Japanese higher education through internationalization of all types of Japanese HEIs, including private universities, and teaching-centered universities; and enhancing the international competitiveness by internationalizing teaching, learning, and research activities, as well as governance and management. As a result, the recent internationalization of Japanese higher education differs essentially from those in the previous phases. It is, though, evident that Japan is also facing many issues resulting from the internationalization of higher education in this era of globalization. A number of clear examples illustrate this. First, in comparison with the private sector, neither the national nor the public sector is actively responding to new challenges, nor have they accomplished any remarkable expansion of employment international faculty nor have they exported cross-border programs and institutions, although there are plans to do so(Ariff, 2019). Second, in the past decades data shows there has been no big rise in the number of non-Japanese presidents or vice-presidents in either national or public universities. Finally, it appears that in most cases, institutional leaders’ perceptions of benefits and risks of internationalization at their universities differ significantly from many other countries, including China or Korea in East Asia, let alone the USA, the UK, Australia and other English-speaking countries, which have been increasingly affected by the market. In general, the internationalization of Japanese higher education is still highly valued and academically prioritized. They list higher responses of students/staff international awareness, international collaboration and partnership in research, and knowledge creation. This is especially different from those countries in which internationalization at an institutional level is primarily expected to generate more revenues.

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities (2019). Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking. com/arwu2019.html Altbach, P. G. & Selvaratnam, V. (eds.) (1989). From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. xii.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

77

Amano, I. (2014). Globalization and Higher Education Reforms in Japan: The Obstacles to Greater International Competitiveness. Retrieved from https://www.nippon.com/en/ in-depth/a02801/globalization-and-higher-education-reforms-in-japan-the-obstacles-togreater-international.html Ariff, S. U. (2019). Dr. M: Malaysia to host the first overseas Japanese varsity branch campus. New Straites Times on 8 January. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/news/ nation/2019/08/511240/dr-m-malaysia-host-first-overseas-japanese-varsity-branch-campus Arimoto, A. (Eds) (1996) Daigaku kyoukyusyoku no kokusai hikaku [Academic Profession in the Comparative Perspectives] Tokyo, Tamagawa Printing House (in Japanese). Cummings W. G. & Amano, I. (1977) “The Changing Roles of the Japanese Professor”, Altbach, P. G. (ed.) Comparative Perspectives on the Academic Profession. Praeger Publishers, pp.43–67. Ebuchi, K. (1997). Daigaku kokusaika no kenkyu [Research in internationalization of university]. Tokyo: Tamagawa Press (in Japanese). Huang, F. (2007a). “Challenges of Internationalization of Higher Education and Changes in the Academic Profession: A Perspective from Japan”, in Maurice Kogan and Ulrich Teichler (Eds.) UNESCO Forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge. International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel, INCHER-Kassel, Paris and Kassel, pp.81–98. Huang, F. (2007b). Internationalization of higher education in the era of globalization: What have been its implications in China and Japan? Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(1): 47–61. Huang, F. (2011). Changes in and Issues of Academic Profession in Asia. In The Changing Academic Profession in Asia: Contexts, Realities and Trends (RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17), pp.245–248. Hiroshima: RIHE Hiroshima University. Huang, F. and Daizen, T. (2014). Cultivating Global Human Resources in Japan. Presented in the First Annual Conference on Global Higher Education at Lakeland College Japan on 17 May 2014 at Lakeland College Japan Campus, Tokyo, Japan. Huang, F. and Daizen, T. (2017). How do university leaders view internationalisation? University World News on 18 August. No. 470. Huang, F. (2018a). “International Faculty in Japan”. International Higher Education No. 96. pp.18–19. The Boston Center for International Higher Education. Huang, F. (2018b). “Chapter 12 What Are the Benefits and Risks of Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education?” Yan Wu, Qi Wang and Nian Cai Liu (Eds.). World-Class Universities: Towards Global Common Good and Seeking National and Institutional Contribution. Brill Sense. Huang, F. & Daizen, T. (2018). “The Benefits and Risks of HE Internationalisation”. University World News No. 505. Huang, F. (2019). “Changes to Internationalization of Higher Education? An Analysis of Main Findings from Two National Surveys in 2008 and 2017”. In Neubauer D., Mok K., Edwards S. (eds) Contesting Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education. International and Development Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. pp. 95–108. Huang, F. and Daizen, T. (2017). How do university leaders view internationalisation? University World News on 18 August. No. 470 JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science). (2014). Go Global Japan Project. Retrieved from https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-ggj/outline.html Kariya, K. and Rappleye, J. (2010). “The Twisted, Unintended Impacts of Globalization on Japanese Education,” Research in the Sociology of Education, Vol. 17, pp. 17–63, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

78

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Kurimoto, K. (1997). “Internationalization of the national university sector in Japan”, in Knight, J. & Hans de (Eds.) Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries, Amsterdam: EAIE, pp. 100–101. Knight, J. (2002). The impact of GATS and trade liberalisation on higher education. In Globalization and the Market in Higher Education: Quality, Accreditation and Qualifications. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 191–209. MEXT. (2011a). What is Campus Asia? Retrieved from http://campus-asia.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/ about/ MEXT. (2011b). Inter-University Exchange Project. Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/a_ menu/koutou/kaikaku/sekaitenkai/1306226.htm (in Japanese) MEXT. (2011c). Heisei 21 nendo daigaku niokeru kyouiku naiyou do no kaikaku ni tsuite (gaiyo) [A summary of reforms on educational content of Japanese universities in 2009]. Retrieve from https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2011/08/25/1310269_1.pdf (in Japanese) MEXT (2012). Decision of Global Human Resource Development Project in 2012. Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/24/09/1326068.htm (in Japanese) MEXT (2013). Japan Revitalization Strategy-JAPAN is Back-. Retrieved from https://www. kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/en_saikou_jpn_hon.pdf MEXT (2014). Selection for the FY 2014 Top Global University Project. Retrieved from https:// www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf MEXT (2017). Heisei 27 nendo daigaku niokeru kyouiku naiyou do no kaikaku ni tsuite (gaiyo) [A summary of educational content of Japanese universities in 2005]. Retrieved from https:// www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2019/05/28/1398426_001.pdf (in Japanese) MEXT (2019a). Japan statistical abstract, 2019 edition, Tokyo, National Printing Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/002/002b/1417059.htm (in Japanese). MEXT (2019b). Gaikokujin ryugakusei oyobi nihonjin kaigai ryugakusyasu nitsuite (on inbound international students to Japan and Japanese students going abroad). Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/__icsfiles/ afieldfile/2019/01/18/1412692_1.pdf (in Japanese). MEXT (2019c). Gaikokudaigaku nihonkou no shite (Accreditation on branch campuses of foreign universities). Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ shitu/08052204/1417852.htm (in Japanese). Ministry of Education (Japan). (1980). Japan’s Modern Education System. Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/others/detail/1317276.htm Ministry of Education (Japan). (1992) Gakusei hyakunijyuunenshi (History of 120-year school system). Tokyo: Kabushiki kaisya gyousei. pp. 39–40. OECD (1971) Reviews of national policies for education: Japan. Pari: OECD. OECD (2016). Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD. Torii, Y. (2006). Future Prospects of Foreign Branch Campuses in Japan Temple University Japan. National Institute for Policy Research No. 135, pp. 177–187. Retrieved fromhttps:// www.nier.go.jp/kankou_kiyou/kiyou135-181.pdf (in Japanese) Tsuchimochi, G. H. (1996). Shinsei daigaku no tanjyou (The emergence of newly-established universities). Tamagawa Publishing House. Yonezawa, A. (2019). A new national role for universities, but little funding. University World News on 25 January.

CHAPTER SEVEN

Internationalization of Korean Higher Education (1945–2018) A Success Story SUNWOONG KIM

INTRODUCTION The higher education (HE) system in South Korea (Korea, hereafter) has improved tremendously in quantity and quality over the last few decades. In 1960, there were 52 higher education institutions (HEIs) in Korea, and their total enrollment was fewer than 100,000 (Kang et al., 2005). Half a century later, the situation has improved dramatically. In 2018, the number of HEIs has increased to 430 and the enrollment is more than 3.3 million (including about 320,000 in graduate schools). This produced about 170,000 associate bachelor’s, 350,000 bachelor’s, 83,000 master’s, and 15,000 doctorates in the same year. The enrollment rate is 67.6 percent and more than three quarters of students are enrolled in four-year universities (KEDI, 2018). The proportion of college and university graduates in the age group 25 to 34 in Korea is 70 percent, whereas the OECD average was 44 percent, making Korea one of the most highly educated nations in the world (OECD, 2018). Along with its substantial growth, the quality of the Korean HE system has improved substantially. As a result of the higher student numbers, the number of academic staff has also increased. In 1960, there were fewer than 3,500 faculty members, but the number has increased to more than 90,000 in 2018. The student/faculty ratio has been declining continuously over the years, and it reached to 23.6 for regular universities and 35.0 for junior colleges. About 85 percent of all faculty members have PhDs or other equivalent academic credentials, and the proportion is close to 100 percent for most of the topranked research universities. The international ranking of Korean universities has improved consistently over the last couple of decades.1

For example, four to five Korean universities have regularly made it into the QS Top 100 World Universities Rankings recently. Korea ranked 12th in the world in the number of publications in SCI indexed journals (KISTEP, 2018). See Krechetnikov and Pestereva (2017) for a comparable quality evaluation between Korean and Japanese HE systems.

1

79

80

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Internationalization has played a very crucial role in the development of the modern Korean HE system. Korea’s main economic development strategy when it was still a poor country in the 1960s was export promotion and using international trade as the engine of growth. From early on Korea has sent a large number of students abroad for graduate study. Many students who obtained advanced degrees such as PhDs have returned to Korea, and served as professors. These foreign-educated human resources have played crucial roles in building international level research capacity. Government initiatives for HE internationalization and efforts by HEIs to attract foreign students through academic exchange programs have resulted in steady growth of the number of foreign students. In 2018, the number of foreigners seeking degrees in Korea reached 85,000. Several top universities such as Korea University have been running successful short-term academic programs such as international summer schools. These programs attract thousands of foreign students into Korea. This chapter critically evaluates the process of internationalization of the Korean HE system from a dynamic and systemic viewpoint. The socio-economic environment changes over time and the changes that have happened in Korea over the last few decades have been very substantial. In this dynamic environment, policy initiatives by the government and actions by market participants have swiftly produced a new socio-economic environment. Consequently, the government policy initiatives and market participant behavior would and should change over time as well. This chapter adopts a more or less historical analysis. But it is not merely a report of the history per se; rather, the emphasis is on understanding the historical trajectory based on major stakeholders’ objectives, incentives, and constraints. The next section provides a description of the conceptual framework that we adopt in this chapter. We shall call it the HE eco-system. Using this conceptual framework, we analyze the development of the internationalization of the Korean HE system since 1945 by dividing it into four periods. The next four sections detail the different socio-economic environments from the perspective of HE development and the changes that happened during each period. In the last section, we provide conclusions and prospects for future challenges that the Korean HE system is faced with.

HIGHER EDUCATION ECO-SYSTEM: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK We shall take a dynamic systems approach in this chapter. The main framework of reference will be the HE eco-system within which three major stakeholders are operating: government, HE institutions (HEIs), and households. While there are other stakeholders such as firms in the HE system, we believe that these three stakeholders adequately represent the most important players in the Korean HE system. Since HE systems operates under the supervision of the nation state, we make a distinction between domestic and global (or international) environments. All three stakeholders operate mainly in the domestic environment. However, global environments outside the country provides challenges and opportunities for all stakeholders for international activities. In the HE system, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to agree on the principal objectives within and among the three groups of stakeholders. Therefore, we shall assume that each group would maintain separate objectives in choosing their actions. Moreover, the objectives are multi-dimensional and often conflict amongst them. Also, it is important to remember that the priority may change over time depending on the socio-economic environment.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

81

The government includes provincial and local governments as well as the central government. However, in the case of Korea, the role of the central government, particularly the Ministry of Education, is much more important than other branches of government, as its willingness and ability to control the behavior of other stakeholders (i.e., HEIs and households) have been quite substantial over the decades that we are going to examine. There are three major roles of the government in the HE ecosystem. First, it sets the policy objectives and initiatives, and maintains the bureaucracy in order to implement them. Second, it finances substantial portions of HE expenditure. Its financial capacity is constrained by the political will as well as the nation’s economic strength. Third, the government also operates national universities. Furthermore, it is very important to recognize that each group contains quite heterogeneous members. Stakeholders are diverse in their ideologies, opportunities, and constraints. Within the group of HEIs, there are institutions that are historically prestigious and command a large amount of fiscal resources seeking to advance international prestige. At the same time, there are institutions having difficulty in recruiting students and their top priority may be to achieve financial stability. Also, their objectives and behavior would be naturally quite different even when the socio-economic environment they are faced with is the same. Households are different in terms of their academic and financial capability as well. In regards to HEIs, households are educational consumers. The decision of whether to attend a HEI, and which HEI, would depend on the perceived benefit of receiving HE, and the cost (the direct cost, such as tuition fees, as well as the amount of time involved). To the government, households create political pressure for certain policy choices. Each stakeholder operates in a common environment in a particular time period. We shall call this environment the “socio-economic environment.” It encompasses other elements such as the political ideology which dominates a particular time period and social psychological attitudes towards certain phenomena. It is important to recognize that the current socio-economic environment is a product of past actions of the three stakeholders as well as the changing global environment. An important assumption that we adopt is that the socio-economic environment is stable during a certain time period. Of course, the environment may, in reality, constantly change over time. However, the stable environment allows us to identify a plausible course of actions by each stakeholder in a more controlled static framework. The determination of the period of constant socio-economic environment is certainly a subjective choice, but we believe that the periods identified in this chapter are a reasonable choice based on several factors including political regime change, the socioeconomic situation of Korea, as well as global environment. Over time, the environment may change due to changes in “external” forces, over which the groups have no control, as well as those of “internal” forces determined by the actions of the stakeholders. As the environment changes, the agents’ objectives or the priorities among them may change. Based on the information gathered from the environment and the incentive system of the environment, each agent chooses its optimal activities, and the collection of these activities by other agents will determine the “internal” environment of the next period. The HE eco-system is depicted in Figure 7.1. The three boxes represent three stakeholders, and the circle surrounding the boxes defines the boundary between domestic and international environment. Each stakeholder has windows towards the global environment in which they can operate. The “internationalization” happens mainly

82

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 7.1: Higher education eco-system.

through these windows. For example, HEIs accepts foreign students and hire foreign academic staff. Households go abroad to study further education. These activities are “direct internationalization” of HE. The direct internationalization also creates “indirect internationalization” of the stakeholders’ behavior. For example, a large influx of foreign students (direct internationalization) may affect HEIs’ administrative structure and/or resource allocation (indirect internationalization) in order to accommodate the large number of foreign students. The interactions among stakeholders are represented by the arrows between the boxes. For example, the arrow from government to HEIs represents government laws and regulations towards HEIs, and the opposing arrow represents actions by HEIs in order to satisfy them. The collection of actions and the reactions of a particular period define the workings of the eco-system until new changes (due to external or internal forces) make the old eco-system no longer sustainable.

INFANCY OF MODERN HE AND POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (1945–1960) In the aftermath of the Second World War and the retreat of the Japanese colonial government, the occupying Allied Forces put the Korean peninsula under the trust of the two victors, the United States and the Soviet Union. The divided trust eventually resulted in the divided nations when South Korea (Republic of Korea) and North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) both separately declared their independence in 1948. On June 25, 1950, the Korean War broke out as the North tried to unify the South by force, and the peninsula was engulfed in bitter fighting. After more than one million soldiers and four million civilians died, the war ended on July 27, 1953.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

83

TABLE 7.1 Trends in GDP per capita (current USD) and enrollments (in thousands) Year 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018

GDP per Primary capita (USD) School

158 106 279 608 1,674 2,368 6,153 11,468 11,347 17,551 20,510 27,105 31,363

1,733 2,658 2,947 3,261 4,941 5,849 5,599 5,658 4,857 4,868 3,905 4,020 4,002 3,299 2,715 2,711

Middle School

High School

Higher Education

Graduate School

10 381 226 529 751 1,319 2,027 2,472 2,782 2,276 2,482 1,861 2,011 1,975 1,586 1,334

268 273 427 5,901 1,123 1,698 2,153 2,284 2,158 2,071 1,763 1,962 1,788 1,539

80 93 127 164 221 564 1,192 1,380 2,213 3,130 3,209 3,223 3,275 3,056

4 7 14 34 68 87 113 229 277 317 333 322

Source: GDP per capita (World Bank); enrollment (Kang et al., 2005, KEDI, 2018).

South Korea inherited the Japanese educational infrastructure established during the colonial period (1910–1945). When all Japanese returned home, Korea was faced with a serious shortage of teachers as most of the teachers were Japanese. Also, during the Korean War, many of the school buildings were destroyed as many of them were used for military purposes. Despite the severe shortage of teachers and school buildings, the compulsory primary school education law adopted during the late 1940s, combined with the post-war baby boom, increased demand for primary education tremendously. The number of primary school students increased from fewer than 1.5 million in 1945, to 3.6 million in 1960, and to 5.7 million in 1970 (see Table 7.1). With the ballooning financial need for reconstruction after the war, the Korean government did not have much public financial resources that could be invested in education. Moreover, during the 1950s, the share of the educational expenditure out of the total government budget ranged from between 10–15 percent, whereas the share has stayed around 20–25 percent since 1980. Because of the fiscal constraint under ballooning demand for primary school education, the government had to rely heavily on private supply in secondary and HE. Even the public institutions had to charge relatively high tuition fees. Over the following decades, the government financial share in primary and secondary education has gradually increased, but the tradition of relatively high tuition fees for public universities remains. The enrollment in HE in Korea during this period was extremely low, and the quality of education was also very poor. Because of the rapidly growing demand for primary education, the HE sector was very low priority. Without strong government oversight or financial backing, many private universities were established during the late 1940s and 1950s. In particular, private HEIs took advantage of the loophole of the 1950 land reform laws in which land used for schools was exempt from the mandatory land redistribution scheme (Chae and Hong, 2009).

84

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

During the colonial period, the Japanese Imperial government established a limited HE system in Korea, including one Imperial University in Seoul. In the aftermath of the Second World War and the Korean War, many national universities (at least one per province) and private universities were established. Because of the American occupation, the Korean HE system is naturally heavily influenced by the American model of HE as well as the Japanese model, which in turn is influenced mostly by the German model. During this period of infancy the most remarkable internationalization of HE happened through the channel of study abroad. The Rhee Syngman government sent its top talent to the United States and Europe under the official scholarship programs in order to nurture leaders of future generations, particularly in the field of science and engineering. President Rhee, himself a trailblazer of studying abroad, had studied at George Washington (BA), Harvard (MA), and Princeton (PhD) and valued the experience of studying abroad when the domestic educational opportunities were quite limited. In 1948 the Rhee Administration selected thirty-five students for the first two-year government-funded scholarships, and the first students departed in 1949 (Kim, 2009). The program stopped due to the Korean War, and restarted in the late 1950s with an annual count of fifty to sixty students. In addition to the government scholarship, a substantial number of privately funded Korean students went abroad for further study. During the Japanese colonial period, the most popular destination for study abroad was Japan. However, since the liberation the most popular destination changed to the United States as American influence became most dominant in Korean affairs. In the late 1950s, Korean students accounted for up to 8 percent of total foreign students in the United States (Kim, 2010). Despite the substantial number of students studying abroad, the situation was a classic case of brain drain. Most students did not return, instead settling in the United States and other more developed nations, where living and working conditions were much superior to those in Korea, a country that had experienced two major wars and destruction and suffering from political chaos, lack of social infrastructure, and material shortage (see GDP per capita in Table 7.1). However, substantial Korean expatriates who were educated and trained in developed nations contributed greatly in the industrialization that happened in the late 1960s through the 1970s and 1980s, as we shall see in the next section.

PUSHING FOR INDUSTRIALIZATION AND SUPPRESSION OF HE (1961–1979) In 1961, political stability had been restored by a successful bloodless coup d’état organized by General Park Chung Hee. Since the military coup, Park served as the interim President and the President for four four-year terms until his assassination in 1979. While his later years would be characterized as a suppressive dictatorial regime, the economic policies adopted by the Park administration during the early 1960s turned out to be very successful and enabled the Korean economy to take the path of modernization. Utilizing expert economic technocrats educated in the United States, Park adopted an export promotion policy for the nation’s economic development. Giving preferential state support for successful manufacturers that could export large volumes of goods to developed nations, the Park Administration was able to achieve a very high rate of economic development (6–10 percent per annum during the 1960s and 1970s). In the 1960s, these exporting firms specialized in light manufacturing goods, such as clothing

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

85

and the textile industry, to take advantage of abundant low-skilled labor. As the level of technology and entrepreneurship improved, these firms moved into more capital intensive goods, such as the steel, automotive, and petrochemical industries. This successful industrialization created a boom for the demand for semi-skilled workers. The government responded to the labor demand by expanding secondary school education. As the highest priority of the government was to maximize investment in the physical capital stock, the expansion of secondary education was in large part financed by private sector suppliers. Up until the mid-1970s the Korean education system was characterized as an elite system with a strict principle of meritocracy starting from secondary education. All middle schools (grades 7–9) and high schools (grades 10–12) had individual entrance examinations with a complete school choice. Consequently, all the secondary schools had a strict hierarchy based on reputation and quality. However, the secondary school equalization policy adopted during the mid-1970s eliminated the competition for most of the top-ranked secondary schools. The secondary school equalization policy virtually nationalized private schools by eliminating the entrance examinations (and mandatory assignment of students) and fixed tuition fees. During this period of rapid expansion of secondary education (see Table 7.1), HE was highly regulated and suppressed by the government. The government strictly regulated the entry to the HE market and the enrollment of the existing colleges and universities were dictated by a quota system, in which the Ministry of Education (MoE) controlled the enrollment capacity for each department for each institution. There was also a political reason for this suppression. The students and professors in universities are the most vocal opponents against the Park regime, which had become more dictatorial, and the civil unrest led by student anti-government activists were serious threats to the legitimacy of the government. Because of the limited supply of university graduates, the returns to HE were very high. Most graduates from universities have ample opportunities in the job market regardless of their majors. During this period, Korea experienced rapid urbanization along with industrialization. Cities were getting larger, and universities located mostly in cities have no problem in filling their places. The constraint was the enrollment quota imposed by the government. There was very little attention by the government with regard to the internationalization of HE. However, interactions with the outside world grew substantially because of growing trade. Many workers began to have overseas experiences through employment. In order to export manufactured goods, the Korean industries have to import substantial capital goods. Rather than over-valuing the domestic currency, as many Latin American counties did during the period, Korea has kept its official exchange rate close to the market rate. Consequently, the country ran a chronic trade deficit, and foreign exchange was in short supply. The government’s reaction to this problem was to allocate the valuable foreign currency to industry more favorably. Households trying to visit foreign countries (including students) faced severe restrictions in converting money to foreign currencies. There were very few internationalization efforts by HEIs either by domestic institutions or foreign institutions. Although study abroad remained popular, the flow was limited because of the strict foreign exchange control and travel restrictions. Students are required to pass government exams to be qualified for study abroad, and the amount of money that can be converted to foreign currencies was limited. Consequently, study abroad was concentrated on the disciplines in science and engineering in which paid assistantships were more abundant.

86

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

One exception to this limitation was the Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies, established by the former chairman of the SK Corporation, Chay Jong Hyun. The foundation started a full scholarship program for students pursuing study abroad for their PhDs in social science fields in 1974. Since then, the Foundation has successfully funded more than 700 PhDs (see http:/kfas.or.krf for more details). In the late 1970s, the export promotion policy started to bear fruit. The economy grew very rapidly during the 1960s and early 1970s. The country was able to get out of a chronic trade deficit and started to generate trade surplus. The government wanted to change the industrial structure of the Korean economy from light manufacturing to heavy manufacturing. The latter industries require more technical know-how, and consequently the demand for human capital with a high level of engineering and technology increased. Because of these factors, the government revitalized government-funded scholarship for study abroad programs sending a dozen or so students per year (Y. Kim, 2009). Towards the end of this period, active recruitment of Korean expatriates in developed countries started. In 1966, the Korean Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) was established and actively recruited Korean scientists and engineers abroad. In 1971, the Korea Development Institute (KDI), an economic think tank, was established. These institutes provided far better compensation packages (two or three times higher salary with housing and other subsidies) for their recruits compared with those for domestically trained researchers, as the perceived abilities and productivity between the two groups were deemed to reflect those differences. Universities and private firms started to recruit expatriates as well. Many freshly qualified PhD students were virtually guaranteed professorial or executive positions in large corporations such as Samsung, LG, and so on. Brain drain of the previous period reversed itself to “brain gain,” in which many of the former study abroad students who resided in advanced countries started to come back to Korea.

VENT FOR THE EXCESS DEMAND (1980–1993) In the aftermath of the assassination of Park in 1979, Chun Doo-Whan, a Major General, took the control of the government. Civil unrest continued until the country finally returned to a stable democratic government in 1987, when another general, Roh TaeHoo, won the popular vote against the two political opponents who divided the votes of the democratic supporters. During the 1980s, despite the political turmoil, the economy continuously grew rapidly. Korea became an export power house in the world trade scene. The chronic trade deficit turned into a chronic trade surplus, and the surplus gets larger every year. The foreign exchange reserve continuously increased, as did the value of the Korean won. The government’s hold on foreign exchange control for households became more liberalized. Although the strong MoE control on the HE sector remains, the government can no longer contain the excess demand for HE. The limited number of places makes the entrance to universities very difficult, as the number of high school graduates has increased very rapidly. The imbalance between the supply and demand for university places increased the number of jaesusang (repeat exam takers). Under this tremendous social pressure, the Chun Administration expanded the enrollment quota substantially to accommodate the rapidly rising HE demand. In 1975, the enrollment in HE was about 220,000. In 1985, the figure increased to about 1.2 million, and the Korean HE system began to enter a massification stage (S. Kim, 2008).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

87

With the expansion of HE and the growing economy, there was a shortage of professionals such as engineers, managers, university professors, and so on. However, the quality of graduate education in Korea was still quite low. Many academic staff do not have proper advanced degrees. Consequently, numbers of those returning to graduate education were quite high. The combination of a high rate of returns to graduate education, lack of high-quality domestic graduate programs, and prospering export economy with large foreign exchange and strong domestic currency create a bonanza of study abroad. In the late 1970s, the number of Korean students in the United States was less than 5,000, but in 1995 it increased to 40,000, Korea became the third largest sending country to the United States in the world. Most of these students studying abroad were self-funded. During this period, most of the top Korean students practically used schools in advanced countries, particularly the United States, for their graduate education. Between 1990 and 1995, the number of PhDs awarded to Korean nationals reached 1,500 per year, almost the same number awarded domestically. Since then the domestic PhD recipients have continued to grow, whereas the number of Koreans who received their PhDs in the United States began to stabilize between 1,000 and 1,500 per year. This period is also characterized by a strong brain gain. Many PhD students from the United States, Europe, and Japan came back to Korean universities. With the rapid expansion of the HE sector, the demand for professorial positions increased rapidly. Freshly qualified PhD graduates from abroad rapidly filled the new positions. During this period, a large number of Korean students who received PhDs abroad also returned home.2

LIBERALIZATION AND DEEPENING OF INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HE (1994–2019) President Kim Young Sam (1993–1997), the first civilian elected to office since 1960, began to loosen the government’s grip on the political and economic arena. The economic growth of the past three decades made Korea much more affluent. Due to the past three decades of export promotion, Korea’s economy was closely linked to the rest of the world. When the Uruguay Round, a decade-long multilateral trade talk involving 123 countries, was concluded with the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, Korea embraced the new era of globalization. In addition, in 1996 Korea made a successful attempt to join the club of the most industrialized nations, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The inclusion of HE as a service industry under the WTO charter gave Korea the impetus it needed to internationalize the HE sector. Achieving a fully democratic nation with substantial economic power, Korea now started to engage with the global economy much more extensively by putting kugjehwa (internationalization) as the nation’s top priority. The 1995 Education Reform also marks an important turning point in Korean education policy. The Reform was an attempt to introduce the neoliberal paradigm and rid Korea of heavy-handed government control. Before the reform, the HE sector was highly regulated. For example, the establishment of a HEI required approval by the MoE. The enrollment quota for each school was strictly controlled. The reform allowed anyone who satisfied the regulatory requirement to establish a HEI. Choice of educational consumers and diversity of market provision of HE were emphasized. However, the MoE

See Namgoong (2009) for a detailed study on the role of returned scholars.

2

88

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

was resistant to let go of its strong bureaucratic impulse to control and guide the HE sector. Simply put, it started to use financial incentives more often than direct regulations (Byun, 2008; T. Kim, 2008). The 1995 Reform opened the floodgates of the pent-up demand for HE in Korea. Because of the suppressed demand during the past three decades, the HE market was flooded with a swift market supply. In 2000, there were more than 160 four-year universities in Korea, compared with about only 85 in 1980. Many two-year junior colleges converted to four-year universities. In 2000, the HE enrollment figure increased to 3.1 million, more than double that of the previous ten years. The enrollment rate increased to 60 percent at the turn of the century. Korea has entered into the era of a universal access to HE. Since then, internationalization of the Korean HE system has been deepening continuously. The change has been significant in many ways. During this transformation, all three stakeholders, government, HEIs, and households, have pursued their own objectives and initiatives in the changing domestic and international environment. The Korean case of the internationalization of HE demonstrates how their actions and reactions can produce changes in many areas of the HE system, which include student choice, institutional changes in teaching, research activities, governance structure, government funding, and so on. Overall, since the 1995 Education Reform, internationalization of HE in Korea now encompasses multiple channels for different stakeholders, including: a. Traditional study abroad students who seek the best graduate education abroad b. Korean students who seek international HE experience for better language and cultural proficiency for Korean and global labor market advantage c. Overseas Korean students who would like to experience the culture and learn the language of the mother land d. Foreign students who seek cross-cultural experience (semester abroad or international summer school participants) e. Foreign students coming to Korea for academic training (enrolling in degree programs) in Korea f. Faculty members for teaching and research across the national border. The tight web of internationalization is closely connected for the several decades of the engagement in the international arena through commerce, travel, education, etc. Overall, the changes during the period can be summarized in three points. First, student mobility has been diversified. Outbound destination started to include not only the United States, the UK, Germany, and Japan, but also include Canada, Australia, China, and Southeast Asian countries. The classes of students who participate in study abroad were broadened. The objectives for study abroad are more diverse, and the destinations now include many developing countries as well as developed countries. Second, Korean HEIs began to target international students as well as domestic students who are likely to study abroad much more conscientiously. In order to meet the demand for these international students, many HEIs adopted significant changes in instruction medium and administrative structure so that Korea became a significant inbound destination for international students. There are now many more courses taught in English. Some departments or schools in many institutions are completely run in English. There are even some HEIs (either founded by a foreign entity or Korean) completely run in English. Joint or dual degrees between Korean and foreign institutions began to be established.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

89

Third, Korean universities are now much more visible in global HE market by improving their research capacity. Publications in international scholarly journals have increased tremendously during this time period. Korean universities attract many more international students and professors. We shall discuss these three points separately in more detail.

International Student Mobility During the Kim Young Sam Administration (1993–98), many universities started to implement internationalization policies following the financial incentives of the government. With a high rate of access to HE and more competition among institutions in place, Korean HEIs needed to develop institutional strategy to promote themselves. However, academic reputation is relatively difficult to change in a short time, and one of the most visible activities in attracting students was the internationalization policies. Also, many international rankings for world class universities include several indicators of internationalization, such as number of foreign students and foreign faculty members. Such indicators are used by the Korean government in distributing resources for research and development across universities. Also, a major daily newspaper in Korea, Joongang Ilbo, started to announce its university rankings in response to the market demand for more information among universities. Although the Korean HE system has been known to be very hierarchical and the reputations of major universities are well known to everyone, the Joongang Ilbo rankings were the first independent and systematic effort to evaluate university performances by using objective criteria. The most important internationalization activity by many Korean HEIs was international academic exchange programs. Up until then, study abroad was mostly initiated by individual students. During this period, however, many universities actively started to create international academic exchange programs through bilateral agreement with foreign HEIs. Students who are enrolled in Korean universities are sent to foreign universities for a semester or two in exchange of hosting the counterpart university students.3 Typical modus operandi are to sign an MOU (memorandum of understanding), establishing an intent to cooperation, and follow up with a specific exchange programs describing each party’s privileges and obligations. While the typical program includes faculty and staff exchanges and research cooperation, student exchange is the main component. Such bilateral student exchange programs have started to mushroom since then, and many major Korean universities now maintains hundreds of such exchange programs in their books. The student exchange programs spread among many Korean HEIs, as this kind of internationalization would make the HEI receive favourable evaluation from the MoE. But, more importantly, there was large market demand for such short-term study abroad. As the Korean economy developed, many high-paying jobs required foreign language competency (English to begin with, but later Chinese and Japanese as well). While some students still seek foreign degrees, particularly at the world’s top institutions, most are less willing to spend many years studying abroad. The majority of students prefer a shorter visit (a semester or two) abroad for acquiring language and cultural competency, and eventually get a job in Korea. Bang (2013) stresses the importance of presidential leadership and staff members’ entrepreneurship of the institution in reaching out in its internationalization efforts.

3

90

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

One critical bottleneck in the bilateral student exchange program was the mismatch between the number of Korean students who wanted to go abroad and the number of foreign students who visited Korean HEIs. When the former was much larger than the latter, foreign institutions were naturally reluctant to take too many Korean students. Most institutions overcame this issue by charging fees (typically at a discount rate) to overflow students or by creating short-term visits for foreign students during the summer time. When the Study Korea program started, during the Kim Dae Joong Administration, it gave Korean universities a subsidy for attracting foreign students. Another innovation was the provision of dual or joint degree programs between Korean and foreign institutions. Recently, many institutions have developed more structured academic cooperation by offering dual degree programs. In the dual degree programs, a Korean university has a bilateral agreement with another foreign university so that one student can receive two separate degrees simultaneously by satisfying the degree requirements through the favorable agreement. For example, Ajou University at Suwon City started dual degree programs with Stony Brook University and Illinois Institute of Technology in early the 2010s. Currently, a few other universities such as Seoul National University, Sookmyung Women’s University, and Hanyang University are operating dual degree programs with foreign partners.4 Meanwhile, the average age of the students participating in study abroad was becoming lower. Up until the 1970s, most of the students were graduate students. During this period, the number of undergraduate students studying abroad began to exceed that of graduate students. Some high school and middle school (and even primary school) students started to go abroad to study. In 2005, the government reported about 8,000 primary school students and 12,000 secondary schools were studying abroad. However, these numbers are likely to be grossly underestimated, as many of them did not report where they were studying to the government. The early study abroad boom was motivated by many upper-class parents who were frustrated by the lack of private school opportunities and the high-pressure university admissions process in Korea.

Catering for the Demand for International Education Domestically As a result of the 1995 Reform, Korean HEIs started to actively respond to the demand for international education of domestic and foreign students (groups b, c, d, and e identified earlier). Attracting more international students became an important institutional goal for many universities, as government policy and market demand recognize the success of attracting foreign students. Consequently, the number of foreign students studying in Korea has been increasing rapidly. In 2000, there were fewer than 4,000 students in Korea, roughly equally divided between undergraduate and graduate students. In 2018, there were about 55,000 undergraduate students and 30,000 graduate students (see Table 7.2). China sent the largest number of students in 2018, followed by Vietnam and Mongolia (see Table 7.3). There are two major incentives for promoting in-bound international students. The first is to improve global and domestic ranking of the university, as the share of international

4 Byun and Kim (2011) report that twenty-nine Korean universities have dual degree programs, with thirty-four overseas HEIs in fourteen countries.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

91

TABLE 7.2 Trend of degree-seeking foreign students (2000–2018) Total University Junior college Graduate school

2000

2005

2010

2015

2016

2017

2018

3,963 1,846 183 1,877

15,577 6,926 2,153 5,742

60,000 37,491 3,262 16,291

55,739 31,377 1,595 22,767

63,104 35,753 1,822 24,160

72,032 42,371 2,238 26,066

86,036 50,997 3,702 29,939

Source: KEDI, Basic Statistics in Korean Education, various years.

TABLE 7.3 Number of foreign students by country and purpose (2018) Degree programs

Non-degree programs

Junior college

University Master’s Doctorate

Language Other training training

142,205 3,729

52,368

21,429

8,510

41,661

14,508

China 68,537 1,286 Vietnam 27,061 1,596 Japan 3,977 61 Mongolia 6,768 106 Others 22,163 601

36,303 3,757 1,394 1,172 7,126

10,565 1,479 171 1,875 4,380

3,636 953 71 304 2,568

10,722 18,791 1,378 3,218 5,398

6,025 469 902 93 2,090

Total

Total

Asia

United States America Canada Others Europe

France Russia Others

2,746

23

660

490

207

306

1,060

846 1,230

5 5

361 336

192 315

78 68

61 260

149 246

1,257 1,080 3,195

2 24 15

51 273 596

38 148 1,404

20 35 481

144 351 482

1,002 249 217

Source: KEDI (2018), Basic Statistics in Korean Education.

students is often incorporated into the determination of the rankings. Both government and individual institutions have strong motives to attract more international students. The second incentive is the tuition revenue generated by foreign students. As most universities in Korea rely heavily on tuition revenue as the most important source of income, securing adequate enrollment numbers is an important financial goal. In particular, during the time in which the number of domestic students decreased sharply due to the low fertility rate in Korea, private universities had to watch their enrollment figures. In order to meet the demand for non-Korean speaking students, many Korean institutions started to offer EMI (English Medium Instruction) courses. Before 1995, EMI courses were a rarity, offered only when instructors could not give lectures in Korean. However, since 1995, several Korean universities started to offer EMI courses. Study Korea 2004 during the Roh Administration gave financial incentives to HEIs for EMIs. Top research universities that want to attract high quality non-Korean graduate students offer such courses in order to make themselves attractive to foreign students. A few internationally oriented small universities such as Handong Global University and Woosong University do offer EMI courses. This is in order to take advantage of the niche

92

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

market by attracting Korean students who want to take EMI courses either because they are not comfortable taking courses in Korean or they want to experience EMI courses to improve their English-language ability. EMI have courses proliferated since then, and currently most top-ranking universities have substantial numbers of undergraduate as well as graduate courses in English.5 While the increasing EMI courses offered broader opportunities for international students, it was still not easy to complete degree programs by taking only EMI courses in most universities. In order to respond to the demand for English-only programs, some English-only institutions started to be established in Korea. In 1998, KDI School of Public Policy and Management, under the auspices of the Korea Development Institute, opened as a graduate school only institution within the course on public policy, public and business administration. As part of Korea’s overseas development assistance initiatives, KDI School’s main mission was to educate students from many developing nations about Korea’s economic development experience. Some universities convert graduate schools of international studies or graduate schools of management into English-only institutions. Most of the faculty members and students in these schools were Korean. So, initially, there were substantial problems. Many Korean faculty members complained that teaching (mostly or all) Korean students in English was difficult, time-consuming, and not effective. However, in many institutions, particularly more internationally focused programs, seemed to overcame those initial difficulties, as Korean students and faculty members became more prepared for English-only environment, and the proportion of non-Korean students and faculty members became higher. In the mid-2000s, many top ranked universities started to have international summer programs, such as International Summer Semester at Sungkyunkwan University and the International Summer Campus at Korea University. These programs have been growing steadily over the years, and in 2019 Seoul National, Yonsei, Korea, Ewha, Sungkyunkwan, and Hanyang Universities each attracted more than 1,000 students from abroad to the Korean universities to take courses and participate in cultural activities. The growth of these short-term summer programs has been influenced by the growing soft power and cultural attraction of Korea through pop culture, such as K-pop (Korean food, songs, movies, dramas, and reality shows) as well as high culture, such as translations of Korean literature. Recently, there has been a rapid increase in the number of foreign professors.6 At first, most of the foreign professors were language teachers; then the Korean HEIs started to use native-English speakers for their conversational English courses. However, recently the country of origin and specialization has become much more diversified, and as the number of English-only programs begins to increase in Korea, more specialized courses are being taken by foreign students.7 English-only programs and institutions are not only for graduate studies. Yonsei University started its all-English undergraduate liberal arts college, Underwood International College, in 2006. In 2007, Ewha Womans University started Scranton College in the same model. Both Yonsei and Ewha are among the most established private

For example, Korea University boasts that 40 percent of their current courses are taught in English. In 2000, there were 1,373 foreign professors in Korea. The number increased to 5,441 in 2018 (KEDI 2018). 7 In an observatory study, Jang (2017) describes the success of a male Caucasian professor teaching a computer architecture course in a top-ranked university. 5 6

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

93

universities, founded in the late nineteenth century by American Christian missionaries. Naturally, their governance structure very much resembled that of many private colleges in the United States, and many non-Koreans were on the Board. During this time period, both universities taught 10–20 percent of their courses in English. But, obtaining a degree by only taking English courses was difficult and extremely limiting. The two institutions recognized the market for an all-English liberal arts college, where students are accepted with the expectation that they will be able to finish their undergraduate degree by taking only classes taught in English.8 Woosong University, located in Daejeon, also started a couple of colleges with English as the main medium of instruction and administration. However, Sol International School (2014) and Endicott College (2015) at Woosong have undergraduate degrees (Bachelor and Associate Bachelor degrees) with professional training, such as management, digital arts, international studies, and so on. These examples show that both government and private institutions recognize the niche market for English-only institutions. While the majority of the students in these institutions are still Korean, the share of international students has been growing and the quality of instruction and administration has been improving as they accumulate more experience in English-only operation. Recently, the market for English-only programs has been opened to international operators. In 2007, the government announced the plan to create Incheon Free Economic Zone on the reclaimed area near the newly opened Incheon International Airport. The Zone has many international business plans including the idea of attracting several branch campuses of major foreign universities and research institutions by providing financial benefit for facilities and taxes. Because of the dissent of the MoE, which traditionally has opposed the opening of the HE market to international suppliers, the plan has been stalled even though in 2008 Stony Brook University, one of the State Universities of New York, agreed to open the campus in Incheon. Despite its slow start, SUNY Korea opened in the spring of 2012. Since then, Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) of New York started its summer program in 2013, George Mason University Korea, Ghent University Global Campus, and the University of Utah Asia Campus opened in 2014. The branch campuses are supervised by the Incheon Global Campus (IGC), which sets the operational rule of the international campus and coordinate the relationship to the government.9 Currently, those branch campuses in total operate about two dozen undergraduate departments and four graduate programs. English-only programs in Korea are relatively new. So it may be too early to evaluate their success or failure. English is not a commonly spoken language in Korea in the daily lives of most people. In this regard, these programs in Korea do not have the same advantage as those in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, or Canada. However, there is still a large demand in Korea for study abroad and experience of English-only instruction and language skills for higher-level business activities. The 1995 Reform and the gradual liberalization of regulatory environment enable domestic and foreign institutions to take advantage of the demand for international education not only in Korea but in the region as well (Jon et al., 2004). During the Lee Administration there was an attempt to allow for-profit universities to operate in Korea, but this initiative was not implemented because of strong opposition by Stephanie Kim (2014) analyzes the two international colleges as a “third space,” a hybrid between the native and the space imposed by colonists for many Korean diasporas. 9 See Jin (2015) for more detailed information on George Mason University at Songdo Campus. 8

94

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

the MoE. At the same time, regional cooperation mechanisms among universities with China, Japan, and ASEAN countries started, and the initiative eventually launched the CAMPUS Asia (Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students in Asia), a joint academic program among three countries. In 2016, Peking University, Waseda University, and Korea University were selected to start joint degree programs and intensive short-term programs. There is a good reason to expect Korean HEIs to be more open to English-only programs in the near future. Due to the rapid decline in fertility, Korea is now faced with the dim prospect of a reduction in the college-going age group population. Since Korea is virtually at the highest level of enrollment rate in HE, the reduction in population size would directly translate into the reduction of university students. Until 2019, the annual number of the 18-year-old population was between 550,000–600,000. However, that number is expected to decline sharply starting from 2020, and will hover around 450,000 in five years. As most public, as well as private, universities rely heavily on tuition revenue, the decline of university attending students will inevitably create financial hardship in many institutions, particularly private ones located in small cities and the countryside. English-only programs could be an important cash cow for Korean universities in the future.

Enhancement of Research Capacity The most important government HE initiative during the 2000s was its effort to build greater capacity for graduation education and research. Projects included the Brain Korea 21 (BK21, with 21 standing for 21st century), during the Kim Dae Joong (1998–2003) and Roh Moo Hyun (2003–2008) Administrations, and the World Class University (WCU) program, during the Lee Myung Bak (2008–2013) Administration. When China announced its ambitious plan to develop its world-class universities by launching the 211 Project in 1995 and the 985 Project in 1998, Korea was motivated to follow a similar dream. The major objective of these government policy initiatives was to increase the size and capability of the research pool that can create new knowledge and technology so that the nation’s graduate programs achieve global competitiveness among the top research universities in the world. The secondary objective was to promote economic development (particularly outside of the Seoul Metropolitan area) through university–industry linkage. In 1999, the Kim Dae Joong Administration launched the BK21, with a budget of 1.4 trillion KRW ($1.4 billion USD) for six years. During the next Roh Administration, the program was reauthorized for another six years with a larger budget of 2.1 trillion KRW ($2.1 billion USD) in 2006 with minor modifications. The program gave financial support for research support (and the publication of scientific papers), technology transfer, and graduate students’ training. The government aimed to create ten “world class universities” by 2012. Also, it wanted to double the rate of technology transfer from university to industry during the same period. Both programs were similar in their objectives and policy incentives. They emphasized the selective concentrated financial support for top universities and departments. The selection criteria were pre-announced (many of them are objective quantitative metric) and the selection process was based on anonymous peer review. Since the amount of financial awards was very substantial, most top universities wanted to participate in the programs. The awards were given to the applying research groups (not university or department) so that each applying research group could assemble the members of the group from the existing faculty members from various departments, post-docs, graduate

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

95

students, or contract-based researchers. Also awards were not tied to specific projects and had relatively long-term (seven-year) funding.10 Among twenty or so research universities in Korea, BK21 had a direct and strong impact on internationalization. First, the emphasis for research output, particularly on SCI or SSCI indexed journals was stressed by research universities and their potential academic staff. Evaluation for tenure and promotion became stricter and the research output became a key criterion for personnel actions. While the government’s quantitative measure-driven policies ignore quality dimensions, the number of publications has increased substantially (Byun and Kim, 2011; Cho and Palmer, 2013). In fact, there was no effective tenure systems in most Korean universities. Although many institutions have reappointment of professors on the books, the process has been mostly nominal. In effect, when teaching personnel were appointed as full-time lecturers or assistant professors, the expectation was life-long employment until the retirement age of sixty-five. When President Suh Nam Pyo, a long-time faculty member of M.I.T. before he was appointed as the President of KAIST in 2006, used the tenure evaluation process, as in the US research universities, it was a tremendous shock to the Korean academic profession. The combination of competition among research universities, BK21, and the introduction of an effective tenure system at KAIST changed the academic market in Korea. Research productivity became the most important criterion over personal connections (nepotism) with existing faculty members and institutional loyalty. Naturally, BK21 generated important incentives for internationalization. First, professors have to pay more attention to publications, particularly internationally recognized scholarly journals published in English. Many returned young PhD students have a stronger incentive to cooperate with their former advisors and/or colleagues for publication advice. In previous decades, as soon as the young scholars returned, their activities were mostly around domestic affairs, as those activities yielded more immediate and greater reward while efforts to publish in international scholarly journals were time consuming and produced no tangible benefit. Second, through the program, many young PhD students were hired as post-docs and term-contract professors. The funds from BK21 enabled HEIs to hire more internationally trained young scholars. Third, the graduate students in BK21 universities had new opportunities to attend international conferences and engage in research activities with international colleagues. With more qualified PhD students produced domestically and abroad, graduate programs started to grow. Research activities became more important, and the number of graduate students increased very rapidly during this period. For example, between 1995 and 2005, the number of graduate students increased from about 113,000 to 280,000. The number of domestic PhDs continuously increased. The WCU program during the Lee Administration had a smaller budget than BK21 ($600 million USD). The new program focused on inviting promising young researchers and eminent senior researchers to Korea for cooperative research initiatives. The program had a policy initiative to invite senior international scholars as research partners. Although WCU is more outward looking in the sense that it tried to attract foreign talents into the Korean research infrastructure, whereas BK21 is more inward looking in the sense that it tried to The strategy of selective support naturally meant that the awards were concentrated on the top universities in Korea, particularly Seoul National University. SNU attracted more than one third of the total BK21 funding, and the top five universities about two thirds. The BK21 funding provided about 5–15 percent of the total research expenses of these institutions (Seong et al., 2008).

10

96

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

enhance the ability of domestic research personnel, the sustained efforts to promote more and better research output generally paid off. The research output measures such as scientific papers published in SCI/SSCI indexed journals and the combined impact of the publication has been increasing substantially since the mid-1990s (Byun, Jon, and Kim 2013).11 In 2009, the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea was established by merging three major research funding agencies: Korea Science and Engineering Foundation, which is an umbrella organization for supporting science and engineering research, The Foundation for International Cooperation of Science and Technology, and Korea Research Foundation, which supports international research on Korean studies. The NRF is modeled on the National Science Foundation of the United States. Since the merger, the NRF has been playing a major role in supporting academic research activities. Although its major funding is through competitive research proposals evaluated by peer experts, some parts of BK21 and the WCU program have been continuing until now. Also, NRF coordinates international research activities with many research funding agencies around the world.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS Since the devastating destruction caused by the Korean War in the early 1950s, South Korea has achieved tremendous success in building a globally competitive HE system in such a short time. During the process of its growth and development, internationalization of HE has been playing a crucial role, just as international trade has been the engine of Korea’s remarkable economic development. However, the nature of international relations has changed over time, as the domestic and international socio-economic environments change. With very few natural resources, Korea’s development is reminiscent of Say’s law in human resources. That is to say, the supply of human resources through education creates its own demand for it later. Rapid expansion of the primary school sector during the 1950s and 1960s provided abundant human resources for the rapid industrialization of the 1960s and 1970s. Largescale study abroad and the brain drain during the 1960s and 1970s provided an abundant pool of professional expatriates who were educated and trained in developed nations. They became a valuable resource when the nation’s demand for highly skilled human resources later increased (Green, Ashton, James, and Sung, 1999). However, it should be warned that the policy of rapid expansion of education, without financial resources or future demand for educated labor, may be precarious. Rapid expansion without resources would yield low-quality education, and excess supply of educated labor without corresponding demand would generate high unemployment of the educated. The main reason that this path of rushed over-education worked in Korea is that the succeeding generations of government policymakers chose appropriate policies, given the supply of human resources available in the marketplace (domestic and abroad). Many low-income countries push for the rapid expansion in education and end up with low-quality education and high unemployment of the educated. Also, many developing nations provide large subsidies to the HE sector and are then faced with the serious situation of brain drain without much hope for imminent brain gain. Korea ranked twenty-first in the number of SCI publications in 1996. The rank has improved to fourteenth in 2005 and twelfth in 2014, where it has remained to the present day (KISTEP).

11

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

97

Korea’s experience shows that a positive feedback loop is possible, but it is clearly not always guaranteed. The Korean case worked because of the government’s aggressive initiatives to recruit expatriates and the successful economic development that happened as a result. In addition to the government’s timely and opportunistic policy initiatives, households and HEIs responded effectively with entrepreneurship and astuteness. Education has served as the most important channel for social mobility for many decades, and the strong demand for education has been maintained when the expectation of higher returns to education had been consistently met through successful economic development for a sustained time period. The process of internationalization in Korean HE also shows a similar resilient dynamic process. In the early stage of internationalization, the government’s role was relatively minor except for the case of moderate study abroad scholarship programs. Up until 1990, internationalization of HE was clearly not on the government’s priority list; increasing export and rapid industrialization was. However, post-WTO, Korean governments embraced globalization wholeheartedly and tried to internationalize Korean HE by consistently providing financial incentives and administrative guidelines. The HEIs responded quickly and creatively to those incentives and guidelines. The strong positive market response is mainly due to the fact that Korea’s HE system is quite competitive; institutions rely heavily on tuition payments and internationalization was consistent with meeting the students’ demand for internationalization in the market. Since the neoliberal reform in 1995, Korean internationalization of HE has been deeper and more diversified. Korea has been consistently one of the top countries in terms of outbound study abroad. Over time, Korea’s international student mobility became much more diversified. Major destinations now include many other countries, such as China. At the same time, the number of inbound foreign students has been increasing quite rapidly, and currently there are more than 80,000 degree-seeking foreign students and another 60,000 short-term language learners and occupational trainees in Korea. Korea now effectively competes with Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore for attracting Chinese and Southeast Asian out-bound study abroad students. Korea’s HE market is much bigger than that of Hong Kong and Singapore, so it has the capacity to absorb the large Chinese demand. While Korea does not have the native English advantage of Australia, it is culturally close to China and the number of courses taught in English has been increasing. Physical proximity works for Korea as well. Advice and housing for foreign students have been improving, and Korea’s public safety record is excellent. Economic ties between China and Korea are very strong. These conditions mark Korea as a competitive destination for many students in the region. The quality of instruction (including classes taught in English) has improved substantially over the last couple of decades. Research capacity of top research universities has improved substantially, attracting both quality graduate students and international professoriates. While the goal of so-called “world class university” may not have been realized yet, many top universities in Korea have been climbing the ladder of international ranking. More importantly, the current upward movement is likely to continue, given the availability of Korea’s human and financial resources. Traditionally, Korea has not allowed for-profit (domestic or international) HEIs. While some private HEIs in Korea work as de facto for-profit institutions for the benefit of the founding family or dominant board members, the prohibition has effectively fended off predatory international for-profit HEIs. International HEIs are now allowed to operate

98

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

with strict policy guidelines and locations, such as the Jeju Special Autonomous District. The English-only degree programs offered in Korean Universities and the foreign branch campuses in IGC are trying to attract foreign students, as well as Korean students who could have gone to study abroad. It is too early to tell the true impact of these campuses in terms of quantity and quality. However, given the level of substantial international engagement of the Korean economy over the last half century, they may soon be able to carve out Korea’s share in attracting foreign students.

REFERENCES Bang, Y. (2013). Internationalization of Higher Education: A Case Study of Three Korean Private Universities, PhD Dissertation, University of Southern California. Byun, K. (2008). New public management in Korean HE : Is it reality or another fad? Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(2): 190–205. Byun, K., and Kim, M. (2011). Shifting patterns of the government’s policies for the internationalization of Korean higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5): 467–486. Byun, K., Jon, J.E., and Kim, D. (2013). Quest for building world-class universities in South Korea: Outcomes and consequences. Higher Education, 65(5): 645–659. Chae, J.-E. and Hong, H.K. (2009). The expansion of higher education led by private universities in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3): 341–355. Cho, Y.H. and Palmer, J.D. (2013). Stakeholders’ views of South Korea’s higher education internationalization policy. Higher Education, 65: 291–308. Green, F., Ashton, D. James, D. and Sung, J. (1999). The role of the state in skill formation: Evidence from the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15(1): 82–96. Jang, E-Y. (2017). Sustainable internationalization in South Korean higher education: Languages and cultures in a foreign professor’s course. Higher Education, 73: 673–689. Jin, J.C. (2015). Internationalization, deregulation and the extension of higher education in Korea: A further note. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(3): 156–160. Jon, J.E. et al. (2004). The emergence of a regional hub: Comparing international student choices and experiences in South Korea. Higher Education, 67: 691–710. Kang, S.G. et al. (2005). Analysis on the Growth of Korean Education for 60 years, Seoul: Korea Education Development Institute (KEDI). Kim, S. (2008). Rapid expansion of higher education in South Korea: Political economy of education fever. In Baker, D.P. and Wiseman, A.W. (eds), The Worldwide Transformation of Higher Education, Bingley, UK : Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 223–268. Kim, S. (2010). From brain drain to brain competition: Changing employment opportunities and career pattern of U.S.-trained Korean academics. In Clotfelter, C.T. (ed.), American Universities in a Global Market. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 335–369. Kim, S. (2014). An International College in South Korea as a Third Space between Korean and US Models of Higher Education, PhD Dissertation, UCLA . Kim, T. (2008). Higher education reforms in South Korea: Public–private problems in internationalizing and incorporating universities. Policy Futures in Education, 6(5): 558–568. Kim, Y.J. (2009). Let us nurture talents: National scholarship program in 1949. Chosun Ilbo, September 30. KEDI (2018). Basic Statistics in Korean Education. Seoul: Korea Education Development Institute (KEDI).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

99

KISTEP (2018). Main Science and Technology Index of Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Policy (KISTEP). Krechetnikov, K.G., and Pestereva, N.M. (2017). A comparative analysis of the education system in Korea and Japan from the perspective of internationalization. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(1): 77–88. Namgoong, S.U. (2009). Returning Scholars in Korean Education: A Case Study of Internationalization of Higher Education, PhD dissertation. Sydney: The University of Sydney. OECD (2018). Education at a Glance. Paris: Organization for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD). Seong, S. et al. (2008). Brain Korea 21 Phase II: A New Evaluation Model. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.

CHAPTER EIGHT

Internationalization as a Mechanism of Higher Education Modernization in Kazakhstan ALIYA KUZHABEKOVA

INTRODUCTION Internationalization has been one of the main mechanisms for modernization of higher education in Kazakhstan since the country became independent after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In fact, “internationalization has become a vital component of the (reform) process” (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014: 17). International mobility, predominantly in the form of government sponsorship of faculty and staff professional development, international faculty hiring and domestic students’ study abroad, has been the main approach to training and exporting academic labor force in the conditions of lacking local higher education capacity. Participation in regional internationalization initiatives, in particular, the Bologna process, has become the driving force for modification of the degree structure, introduction of a new system of academic hours accounting (the credit system), reforms in the system of quality assurance, and integration of the previously isolated higher educational system into the global system of postsecondary training and research. The establishment of several private international universities has been dependent on a steady influx of international faculty. International research collaboration has been viewed as one of the main instruments for strengthening the research capacity of Kazakhstani higher education institutions. Recently, internationalization has been discussed as the way to support the expansion of universities’ autonomy and selfgovernance. This chapter provides an overview of the process of internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan during the three decades of the country’s independence. It starts with a short description of the higher education system in the country. It then provides an account of the historical development of the process of internationalization, including a description of the main players, rationales for internationalization initiatives, mechanisms, activities, policy documents, funding, outputs and outcomes, and challenges. Future directions are identified at the end of the chapter.

100

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

101

HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN The contemporary higher educational system of Kazakhstan, especially in terms of facilities, governance and organizational structures, decision-making mechanisms, and the stock of professional academic workforce, is largely a legacy of Soviet times. The Soviet government invested a lot of effort in the development of universities in the region, prior to the Second World War, because higher education was viewed as essential for industrialization and the development of large-scale farming in Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, which was one of the richest areas in the Soviet Union in terms of natural resources and land. During the period between the 1950s and the 1980s, the number of universities in the country increased from twenty-six to fifty-five (Kuzembayuly, 2006: 323–324). A complex system of higher education was created, including the republic’s own Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized (Vocational) Education. Overall, the public university system was well integrated into the system of Soviet industrial and agricultural production, an effectively trained cadre for the republic’s government, healthcare, and education, which contributed to the Soviet system of innovation and research via several established university-based research schools (teams) in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and health and agricultural sciences. Importantly, due to ideological control and the relative isolation of the Soviet economic production system, the system of higher education in Soviet Kazakhstan had little interaction with the external world. Some collaborative activity existed between Kazakhstani universities and the key research and training centers in Moscow, which produced the top academic and research personnel for all Soviet republics and exported a small share of the academic and research workforce to other members of the union. Meanwhile, there was little mobility of either students or faculty between Kazakhstan and other Soviet republics, as well as between Kazakhstan and countries of the Soviet bloc. After Kazakhstan had become an independent state, the system of higher education established by the Soviets could no longer serve the needs of the new economic system. In fact, during the financial crisis of 1998, which struck the country in the first decade after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, higher education was severely affected by the lack of public funding, the collapse of the centrally planned industrial and agricultural production system, and the dissipation of the established networks of faculty professional development, student mobility and research across the former Soviet space. The funding deficit led to the degradation of facilities and equipment, to the loss of a significant number of faculty and researchers, who moved to better paid jobs in other sectors within Kazakhstan and other countries. It also created a gap in the system of the reproduction of the academic workforce, with few students willing to pursue doctoral degrees given the frugal scholarship support and the rapidly declining status of the academic profession. The government of Kazakhstan was forced to start the process of privatization and modernization of higher education to align the system with the demands of the globally integrated market economy. Over the three decades of independence, the capacity of higher education in Kazakhstan has more than doubled from 250,000 to 595,000 students (Ministry of Education and Science (MES), 2012a). The number of higher educational institutions has increased to 148, more than half of which (93 institutions) are private universities (MES, 2012a). Kazakhstan has joined the Bologna Process, adopted new qualification and quality assurance frameworks, introduced the credit system, and moved from the Soviet to the European three-tier degree structure. It has also developed a government-subsidized system of university scholarships and loans, a competitive system of public research

102

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

finance, and launched several effective international mobility programs. It has become better integrated in the regional and global higher education and research networks. In short, the system has experienced significant transformations, which were largely driven and supported by internationalization initiatives. In the sections below we provide our interpretation of the role internationalization played in the transformation of higher education in independent Kazakhstan.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY PROCESS AND GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN INTERNATIONALIZATION INITIATIVES In the search for new approaches to organization of higher education, which could replace the Soviet system, Kazakhstan has turned to “international experience,” also referred to as “best international practices,” which became the proverbial “holy grail” of educational reformation in the minds of educational policymakers. Policy borrowing has become the most important mechanism in educational modernization, with Kazakhstan having accepted “a post-socialist reform package” delivered as a ready-made solution to all ills by international development agencies (Silova and Steiner-Khamsi, 2008). Some of the items in the package were related to internationalization, which seems to have been conceptualized as a process leading to accumulation of “international experience” or dissemination of “best international practices.” Since internationalization has been viewed as a mechanism for educational policy reforms rather than a goal in itself, the form it took in Kazakhstan was activities-based (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016), with various internationalization activities implemented in connection with specific reforms or reform objectives. Such an approach is, in fact, most commonly used in countries across the world (De Wit, 2011) as opposed to a more comprehensive process approach, which is characterized by “higher commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service” (Hudzik, 2011: 64). Despite the important role that internationalization has played in the modernization of higher education in Kazakhstan, the process of internationalization has never been planned as a separate item on the national education reform agenda. The Kazakhstani government has yet to adopt a separate internationalization strategy and, in fact, needs to clearly define the concept of internationalization (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016). Instead, various initiatives associated with internationalization are discussed and corresponding objectives and outcome indicators are set in the National Programs for the Development of Education and the National Programs for the Development of Science, which are regularly adopted for specific periods of time following the Soviet practice of five-year strategic planning. The closest the government has ever come to formulating an internationalization strategy was the adoption of the Strategy for Academic Mobility in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2012–2020 (MES, 2012a). Similarly, there is no single coordinating agency or unit responsible for the overall process of internationalization, while there are government-funded agencies responsible for the implementation of the Bologna Process, government-sponsored international mobility (Centre for International Programs), and other internationalization-related initiatives. There is not only a lack of coordination, but there is frequently a “disjunction of strategies at the national and institutional levels” (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014: 14).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

103

This lack of coordination is combined with a high level of control over implementation of the initiatives pushed by the government. A team of scholars from Nazarbayev University (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014) conducted interviews with universities’ administrators to document their experiences with internationalization. They found that universities are severely constrained in their internationalization initiatives by “centralized budgets, centralized time-frames, and centralized aims” (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014: 15). To some extent this over centralization is related to the fact that universities have little understanding of the benefits, purposes, and approaches to internationalization because there is a shortage of qualified internationalization professionals in higher education institutions, as well as a huge turnover of English-speaking staff, who frequently find more attractive jobs outside higher education (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014: 15). Little effort has been made so far in terms of systematic data collection and analysis of internationalization. In 2012, the National Centre for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility (NCBPAM) was created to provide an analytical support for the process of implementation of the Bologna-related obligations and international mobility programs. So far, the center has produced only one report containing open statistical data on international student and faculty mobility, international partnerships and research collaborations (National Centre for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility, 2019). Given the lack of policy evaluation capacity in the country, as well as poor statistical data collection effort, only minimal assessment of the effectiveness of the prior internationalization initiatives is typically included in the introductory sections of the National Programs for the Development of Education and the National Programs for the Development of Science.

Some Statistics Related to Internationalization As has been mentioned above, there has been a lack of systematic statistic data collection effort so far. Most recent data on various aspects of internationalization has recently been provided by the National Centre for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility (NCBPAM; 2019). This section provides a summary of the data from the report of NCBPAM (2019). Since 2011, outbound international student mobility in Kazakhstani higher education has increased from 350 participants to 1,826 participants in 2018. Almost 15,000 domestic students participated in some sort of mobility programs during the period of 2011–2018. Of the participants in the mobility programs, 48 percent chose to go to a European university. The second most popular destination of outbound students has been the postSoviet region, especially Russia, followed by South and South-East Asia. The popularity of North America has been relatively decreasing over the years with participation rates declining from 2014 to 2018 and currently constituting only 0.1 percent of the total outflow. It is also worth noting that 49 percent of the participants took part in mobility programs in English. Finally, the share of government-funded students has been decreasing during the last decade relative to the share of self-funding students. While in 2013 the proportion of self- and government-funded students was almost equal at approximately 800 participants per year in each type of mobility, in 2018 annual participation of selffunding students (1,826) is almost three times greater than that of government-funded students (621). According to NCBPAM (2019), Kazakhstan has also become a relatively attractive destination for inbound international students. Between 2016 and 2019 the annual

104

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

enrollment of international students in Kazakhstani universities doubled from 10,399 in 2016 to 20,866 in 2019. The share of international students in the total student population is around 4 percent. Most international students come from other post-Soviet countries, most notably Central Asia. Another important supply region is Asia with most students coming from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China. More than a quarter (26 percent) of international students pursue degrees in medicine and health sciences. Finally, based on the data from NCBPAM (2019), over the last decade, Kazakhstan has attracted 10,590 international faculty (i.e., academics with foreign citizenship) to work in universities across the country. The greatest number was employed during the period of 2011–2014, when the newly created Nazarbayev University was aggressively forming its predominantly international faculty body. NCBPAM (2019) also provides statistics on the number of signed international partnership contracts and ongoing cross-border institutional collaborations. In 2019, universities across Kazakhstan were engaged in 6,373 active partnership contracts. Postsoviet countries are leaders as international partners in this respect and are followed by Europe and Asia. In addition, in the middle of 2019, there were 302 ongoing crossborder institutional collaborative projects, 38 percent of which were conducted by universities, which have the status of institutions of national importance, such as KazakhNational University named after Al-Farabi. Only 18 percent of Kazakhstan universities offered one or more of the 243 existing joint degree programs. The total number of 21 universities offered one or several of the 243 dual degree programs. Most of the programs are available at the Kazakh National University and Eurasian National University.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN THE EARLY STAGES OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM: THE PROLIFERATION OF INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY PROGRAMS As early as the first decade of independence, the government of Kazakhstan, as well as governments of Western countries interested in strengthening liberal economies and democratic regimes in post-Soviet states realized that one of the key deficiencies in Kazakhstan, which may stall the subsequent economic development and competitiveness was the lack of professional cadre to fill decision-making positions in the government and in the private sector. A significant share of the professional cadre in Soviet Kazakhstan was composed of ethnic Russians, Germans, Ukrainians, and other non-Kazakh ethnicities. This resulted from the intentional colonial policy of Russification on the one hand, and from diverse ethnic composition of the republic and ethnic differentiation in higher educational attainment on the other. The vast and largely underpopulated lands of Kazakhstan have become home to thousands of individuals evacuated there from the European part of the Soviet Union during the Second World War. In addition, it became a place of exile for political convicts, who were sent there by Stalin, as well as for “deported” peoples, who were forcibly relocated to the steppe out of fear for their political unreliability and the potential to be recruited as Germany’s allies. Finally, after the Second World War, Kazakhstan became home to thousands of technical and agricultural specialists, who were sent to assist with industrialization and the “raising the virgin lands” campaign. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many of the individuals, who had lived in Kazakhstan for less than two generations decided to return to their

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

105

places of origin. Unfortunately, many of those leaving were the most educated and successful during Soviet times and their departure left many government and management positions difficult to fill. This, combined with the lack of individuals with higher education among ethnic Kazakhs, as well as the more generic problem of the lack of specialists who were able to understand the realities of the capitalist economy, created the urgent need for a supply of new professional cadre to staff the republic’s government with policymakers and analysts able to understand global processes and approaches, as well as to provide the financial and the private sector with managerial staff able to understand the realities of the capitalist economy. Simultaneously, the commitment of Western countries to facilitate the transition of post-Soviet countries to democratic governance and to liberal economic regimes made them quickly realize the need to train locals, who could staff regional offices of international organizations, their own country’s missions, and non-government organizations. The huge demand for the new type of specialists could not be quickly met by the local higher education sector, and outbound international mobility supported with scholarships has come to be viewed as the main solution to the problem. One of the earliest solutions, which offered scholarships to Kazakhstani students to study abroad, were programs funded by the US Department of State, including Fullbright, Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, and Global UGRAD scholarships. These scholarships were provided for year-long study abroad, professional development trips, and graduate training in the US universities. Kazakhstan has also been viewed as an important partner for Germany given that it has been home to thousands of Soviet Germans, who were deported there during the Second World War. The German Academic Exchange Program (DAAD) has funded many Kazakhstani students to pursue education in Germany. In 2015 alone the agency provided 203 scholarships to Kazakhstani citizens (DAAD, 2015). Another notable funder of Kazakhstani students and faculty since the early days of independence has been the British Council (Chevening scholarship, short-term mobility grants, project grants). In later years, as Kazakhstan became a part of the European Higher Education area, Kazakhstani students received access to European mobility funds, most notably within Erasmus, Erasmus Mundus, and Tempus programs. Other foreign governments, which provide scholarships for Kazakhstani students include Japan, India, Singapore, Korea, China, and Turkey. Recently, China has announced plans to increase its funding for Kazakhstani students and faculty to study at and visit Chinese universities within its “One Belt, One Road” Initiative (Li, 2018: 14). Alumni of the programs funded by foreign governments have been highly important as members of the civil society (Campbell, 2016). While many of them work for the private sector and some are employed as university faculty and researchers, their greatest impact was as employees of non-government organizations and regional offices of international development organizations. Graduates of American programs, in particular, filled the labor market gap, which was not addressed as much by government programs. In addition to the foreign-government funded programs, international mobility takes place as a part of intergovernmental grant exchanges and interinstitutional exchange programs. Jumakulov and Ashirbekov (2016) provide a list of intergovernmental grant exchanges, which includes agreements with Egypt (7 grants) Belarus (6 grants), Romania (5 grants), Ukraine (40 grants), Kyrgyzstan (5 grants), China (100 grants), Slovakia (4 grants), and Mongolia (5 grants). Further, several Kazakhstani universities participate in regional higher education networks, which facilitate the creation of interinstitutional exchange programs. Examples of such networks include the Network of CIES (Commonwealth of

106

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Independent States) Universities and Universities of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016). However, the most impactful international mobility initiative administered at the national level turned out to be Kazakhstan’s own scholarship program. In 1993 the government of Kazakhstan launched the presidential “Bolashak” (translated from Kazakh as “Future”) scholarship, which was modeled after similar programs in Malaysia, Singapore, and other Asian transitional economies, which over time was recognized as one of the most successful international mobility programs of its kind (Vaida, 2018). The program awards full scholarship to recipients that covers tuition and fees, and a monthly stipend. It is fully funded from the republic’s national budget. In 2014, the Kazakhstani government allocated 16.5 billion tenge (about 105 million US dollars) to the program (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016). Over the years of its existence, the Bolashak scholarship was awarded to 12,831 individuals, and more than 200 universities in 35 countries have become Bolashak strategic partners (Omirgazy, 2018). According to Omirgazy (2018), during the academic year 2017–2018, 1,209 scholarship holders were studying abroad; 14 were enrolled in bachelor’s programs, 1,021 were master’s degree students, 118 were engaged in doctoral studies, 2 were undergoing postgraduate courses, and 54 were student interns funded by the government. Of the total, 46.2 percent were studying in United Kingdom universities, 38.5 percent were in the United States and Canada, 5.2 percent were in continental Europe, 4.9 percent were in Asia and Oceania, and 5 percent were in Russia. The Bolashak program boasts a very high return rate of students. This rate of return was achieved as a result of the implementation of an effective mechanism of guarantee, whereby students had to put their parents’ or their own apartment as collateral to receive funding. As a consequence of the significant efforts that were spent on cultivating the image of the patriotic, talented, and well-educated Bolashaker, alumni of the program were highly desired in the labor market, scholarships were highly prestigious for any student in the country, and the return was therefore attractive. Nowadays, thousands of Bolashak students occupy professional and decision-making positions in Kazakhstani universities, government, and the private sector. They have truly become the driving force of economic reforms and have produced an impressive return on government investment in international mobility. In addition to the government-level scholarships and grants, Kazakhstan offers a scholarship program for short-term international mobility, which is administered at university level. According to Jumakulov and Ashirbekov (2016), in 2015, 7,000 students received funding via this program, while during the period of 2012 to 2015 the government of Kazakhstan allocated 2.36 billion tenge (about 12.8 million US dollars) towards its budget. Ashirbekov (2016) also provides the results of a survey of university administrators who reported issues with this program. These were related to difficulty in the identification of international partners willing to accept students and insufficient amounts of scholarship, which could not cover the costs at the host universities. Consistent with the main argument of this chapter, international mobility played a key role in the reform of higher education (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016; Nessipbayeva, 2015). Many of the Kazakhstanis who received education or experience abroad, especially alumni of the Bolashak program, are now employed in an analyst capacity in government think-tanks, which assist policymakers with understanding the international experience and the formulation of new policies. Many of them teach at universities on a part-time or full-time basis, work as researchers in scientific laboratories, or are employed as

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

107

administrative personnel, who are introducing international approaches to university management. Some, who work outside of education in the private or public sector, serve on Boards of higher education institutions or private foundations, which provide sponsorship for research and education activities. Finally, as ordinary citizens they have a very active position with respect to educational reforms in the country and exert influence on their surroundings.

SECOND STAGE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION: THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AS A TEMPLATE FOR RESTRUCTURATION AND MODERNIZATION OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM While in the early years sending students and faculty abroad seemed like a good solution to the problem of the deficit of qualified specialists, in the long run a more viable solution was modernizing domestic higher education. The main issue was the lack of understanding of existing international models for organizing higher education and the difficulty in choosing the one most appropriate for the country. Meanwhile, in the background of the government’s struggles with these important choices, the European countries started the process of creating the European Higher Education Area with common standards and approaches to the organization of the educational process. Aligning the higher education system with the parameters set by the Bologna Declaration seemed like a viable solution to the problem of educational modernization in Kazakhstan. In addition, becoming at least an affiliate of the European Higher Education Area had geopolitical importance for Kazakhstan, which tried to develop the identity of a Eurasian vs. a Central Asian state (Tomusk, 2011). Kazakhstan started to follow the Bologna Process around 2000 and became a full member in 2010. The country has ratified the Lisbon Degree Recognition Convention. Over the years, higher education has undergone significant changes in accordance with the expectations of the Bologna Declaration. Some of the most important changes include (1) the transition to the three-tier degree structure to replace the Soviet organization of degrees, (2) the adoption of the European Credit Transfer system to replace the Soviet contact-hour system in the planning of the academic process, (3) the adoption of the grade point average as a system of marking, as well as the introduction of the diploma supplement, (4) the introduction of electives, of academic advising, and academic handbooks, (5) the reform in the system of quality control and the transition to the system of independent accreditation vs. centralized government control, (6) the development of the national qualifications framework. In addition, participation in the Bologna process increased the significance of international mobility and institutional and individual collaboration, and motivated many universities and individuals to seek opportunities to engage in overseas partnerships and projects. Kazakhstani students and faculty received access to European mobility funding mechanisms, while universities joined European university associations. While the Bologna Process did not necessarily make Kazakhstani degrees easily recognizable in the West and did not increase the influx of European students to Kazakhstan, as could have been expected from joining the process, it made Europe one of the main destinations of international mobility from Kazakhstan and contributed to the development of research and academic exchange links between Kazakhstani and European Universities. In addition, as Kazakhstani universities and programs receive international

108

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

accreditation, they may become more attractive for international students from the global South.

THIRD STAGE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION: INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES AS ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVIDERS One of the approaches to higher education reform that the government of Kazakhstan started to use from the early days of independence is co-funding and support of international universities. By international universities I mean three types of universities, which utilize educational models from other countries on a large scale vs. adopting them for individual programs. The first type of such universities is international private institutions. One example is the University of International Business and Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research (KIMEP). International private universities are funded from either local or foreign private sources. However, they usually adopt an educational model of a foreign country (such as the United States) and hire a certain share of international or internationally trained domestic faculty on a systematic part-time or permanent basis to teach their students. The second type of universities are jointly funded international universities established as per inter-governmental agreements. Examples include Kazakh-Turkish University, Kazakh-British University, and Kazakh-Russian University, with the last two no longer existing in the market. These universities, funded by two partnering governments, also adopted the model or substantial parts of the curriculum from a foreign country’s higher education, as well as hiring a certain proportion of faculty from the country. In addition, some of these universities offered future faculty development programs, whereby students could pursue their higher degrees in the partner universities abroad in order to prepare them for subsequent teaching or leadership positions in their home institution. The first two types of universities played an important, while rarely recognized, role in the reform of higher education. They piloted innovative approaches and practices, some of which were later adopted by other private and even public institutions. For example, they were the first to adopt the credit hour system, and to introduce three-tiered degrees and some other innovations, which were adopted by other universities much later. Their rectors participated in national-level consultative groups, which could influence, at least to some extent, educational policy-making processes. They pushed reforms related to government standards regulating graduation and admission requirements, as well as curriculum standards. They were the first to receive programmatic and institutional accreditations, setting an example for other universities to follow. However, most importantly, they gradually led educational policymakers to the idea of providing greater autonomy to universities and prepared the government and the bureaucratic apparatus of Kazakhstan to tackle one of the most ambitious and successful internationalization projects in its history—the creation of Nazarbayev University. The creation of Nazarbayev University marks the beginning of the third stage of the internationalization process in Kazakhstan. The university was established in 2010 as a new type of international university, which utilizes a unique model of partnership and organization and attracts international faculty and staff on a much larger scale than any of its predecessors. The idea to create the university was largely prompted by Jamil Salmi from the World Bank in his paper on world-class universities (Salmi, 2009). This idea fell

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

109

on prepared ground, as the government was experiencing a shift in thinking about approaches to higher education reform in general and about effective ways to train the professional cadre able to understand international approaches and practices. This shift occurred on the one hand as a result of growing dissatisfaction of the government with the ability of Bolashak to produce the much-needed undergraduate students who were expected to fill the demand in priority sectors of areas of the economy associated with technology. After the extension of the scholarship to undergraduate students in 2005, the government came to realize that sending domestic students to other countries at a young age had some negative consequences—the students had a higher likelihood of failing academically, of eloping to the country of study, and of having trouble finding a job due to lack of understanding of Kazakhstani realities. On the other hand, there was growing dissatisfaction with the ability of local universities to modernize quickly enough for the country to catch up with the increasing global competition and technological progress. Any reform efforts in the university frequently faced resistance from the old generation of faculty and administrators, who were trained in Soviet times. Impressed with Jamil Salmi’s (2009) idea of world-class universities, the government decided that creating a flagship in Kazakhstan would be the best way to address two of its concerns. Building a completely new world-class university in Kazakhstan seemed like a viable alternative to sending students to such universities abroad or expecting domestic universities to do something for which they do not have the capacity. A domestic worldclass university, as it was assumed, could both train high-quality undergraduate students at home and to serve as a model to be adopted by other universities across the country. Nazarbayev University was built on a unique partnership and organizational model, which was different from the models used in other countries. It operates as a multipartner international consortia, where each of the schools has been created in partnership with reputable schools in the same discipline from other countries. For example, the Graduate School of Education at NU has Cambridge University and the University of Pennsylvania as its partner institutions. The Graduate School of Public Policy was established in collaboration with Lee Kuan Yew University’s School of Public Policy. The Graduate School of Business collaborates with Duke University. The partners actively participated in the development of the first programs, in the hiring of the founding faculty members and the administration of the corresponding schools. They continue to implement external program monitoring and quality control, participate in the process of hiring of faculty, and in the assessment of master’s and doctoral theses. In some cases, they offer professional development programs for faculty, engage in collaborative research, or host students for semester-long study abroad. They also have an influence on the determination of strategic plans of the university and the adoption of key university policies. At the same time, the consortia of these partnered schools are run together as one single university with common decision-making and administrative structures, shared policies, standards, and budgets. Unlike its predecessors, NU has complete autonomy from the Ministry of Education. This is consistent with the criteria of world-class universities identified by Jamil Salmi (2009). The university is free to utilize any model and approach to education, formulate its own policies, hire and promote its faculty, plan and allocate its budget, and issue its own diploma. It is also frequently able to rely on its special status in bending procurement and accounting reporting procedures, given that it frequently purchases equipment from abroad and faces expenses for doing so, which is uncommon in other Kazakhstani universities.

110

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The multi-partnership model, combined with complete autonomy from the control of the Ministry of Education, introduces some complications into the operation of the university, but also serves as a source of creative innovation. Each of the partners comes from a different country with their own educational traditions and standards in organization of the educational process. In addition, due to the fact that the partnerships are financed directly from the government’s budget, each of the partners feels committed to meet the expectations of the government, even when these expectations may contradict the established international practices. At times, these differences become a reason for disagreements about the way educational processes should be organized or lead to confusion and duplications in the educational process. However, they also serve as a source of creative ideas, which lead to the emergence of new approaches and models that reflect both international best practices and Kazakhstani realities and cultural practices and values. The language of instruction at the university is English. A significant proportion of faculty members are foreign nationals with the rest of the positions filled with internationally trained domestic academics. Foreign personnel also assume most of the leadership positions in administration, while the operational staff is formed from locals with master’s degrees from abroad, many of whom are graduates of the Bolashak program. The university uses a curriculum that is modeled on programs of top universities in the world and that is highly internationalized in its content. Many of its students and faculty participate in international mobility and international research collaborations. So, it is a truly international university in all respects, except for the presence of international students. In the early years the main goal of the university was to replace undergraduate training with Bolashak and all of the admitted students received a 100 percent government scholarship, for which international students did not qualify. The university did not charge tuition or fees from the students. However, at this point, there are discussions of an increasing international student presence on campus, of setting non-residential tuition and fees, as well as of developing scholarship programs for applicants from other countries. Over the nine years of its existence, NU has developed a very strong regional reputation and awareness about its growth across the world, with individuals from many regions of the world applying for faculty positions. NU has almost surpassed all national research universities in terms of research productivity and has developed a strong reputation as a provider of the highest quality of education. Many of its graduates continue on to receive education in top universities abroad or work in decision-making positions in Kazakhstani organizations. More importantly, it has played a key role in dissemination of the best practices to other Kazakhstani universities by conducting regional conferences, and organizing workshops and master classes for faculty and administration of other Kazakhstani higher education institutions.

FOURTH STAGE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION: INTERNATIONALIZATION OF AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITIES During the last two years, the process of internationalization in Kazakhstan seems to be entering a new stage. The expectation of the government is to scale up the model of the

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

111

newly created Nazarbayev University. According to the current State Program for the Development of Education in Kazakhstan 2011–2020 (MES, 2012b), higher education institutions are expected to be provided with greater institutional autonomy and should transition to a self-governing model implemented in the form of Board governance. In addition to that, using the example of NU, top universities are expected to identify an international partner, who would be actively involved in the process of institutional modernization, ensure quality control of academic programs, and collaborate on research projects. While the universities have received a directive from the top to identify such partners, if given real autonomy, they may be able to determine the conditions, the form, the goals, and the outcomes of the partnerships themselves. This may finally move the process of internationalization from the top to the level of universities. Some forward-looking rectors have already started to implement the required changes. A good example in this respect is the Agricultural University in Astana, which had started to collaborate with a partner institution from abroad before the program was even adopted. However, the examples are not yet numerous, and it remains to be seen whether the model of NU is scalable under constrained funding and human resource capacity conditions. After all, regular universities are expected to achieve almost the same quality and results with much less impressive facilities, with less ample funding, an average rather than gifted student body, underpaid, unmotivated, and under-skilled faculty, as well as lowered access to international trained administrative staff from among Bolashak and other mobility program graduates (not everyone would be willing to relocate to universities outside the former and the current capital cities).

LOCAL RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION The research capacity in international higher education is low in Kazakhstan. Very few local researchers conduct international-level research on the topic (Tazhibayeva, 2017). The capacity is now growing thanks to the efforts of the NU Graduate School of Education, which employs several international and local faculty members (some of whom are cited in the chapter) who conduct research on internationalization in Kazakhstan and train the next generation of local scholars. However, most of the research conducted in the country is descriptive in nature and has so far made very limited contributions in terms of new theories or methodological approaches.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROCESS IN KAZAKHSTAN AND POSSIBLE FUTURE DIRECTIONS Several distinctive features characterize the internationalization process in Kazakhstan. First, to a great extent, internationalization in Kazakhstan is pushed by the government as a mechanism for modernization of higher education rather than coming from the need for universities to compete for the student body and to raise extra funding. In fact, “the new developments initiated at the top were not necessarily received at the institutional level with open arms” (Li and Ashirbekova, 2014: 14). Domestic higher education enrollment is still expanding, and most universities target domestic rather than international students as main sources of income. None of the universities successfully compete in international

112

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

university rankings, where extent of internationalization as manifested in the share of international students is an important contributor to the rank. Hence, attracting international students is not particularly important for universities either in terms of generation of external funding or in terms of marketing efforts. International research is also not essential for the survival of local universities given that most of them are teaching oriented as a legacy of the Soviet research system, where universities played a secondary role in research as compared with industrial labs and research institutes of the Academy of Sciences. In addition, international mobility programs are funded by the government rather than by universities and universities have little interest in facilitating mobility of their students or faculty. Meanwhile, the government recognizes the potential of internationalization in stimulating the desired modernization of higher education. Hence, it takes an active part in providing funding for international mobility and international research collaboration, it initiates or supports the creation of international universities, and it leads the process of adoption of European Higher Education Area requirements associated with the Bologna Process. As a result, universities feel the external push to internationalize and many of the results achieved came out of the need for universities to reach certain statistical outcomes in terms of number of contracts signed, partnership projects launched, number of international faculty attracted, or of students sent abroad. Another distinctive feature of the internationalization process in Kazakhstan is that it is not a product of a single strategic initiative or a vision, which would encompass internationalization in various manifestations and would clearly describe desired outcomes in terms of various indicators. This is surprising, given that the government of Kazakhstan clearly views international experience as highly valuable and worthy of adoption. Instead, internationalization is largely a spontaneous process, frequently resulting from the government’s obsession with a certain aspect of international experience as a potentially adoptable approach, and then sending students abroad, and bringing international faculty to support the process of transfer of the desired international practice to Kazakhstan. As a result, internationalization in Kazakhstan looks more like a sequence of loosely connected initiatives targeting various players—students, faculty, research teams, or institutions. This has inevitable implications for the government’s ability to collect relevant data, to evaluate the results, to draw lessons, and to plan internationalization process. Some of the aspects of internationalization are barely present in Kazakhstan. Until recently, Kazakhstani universities were mostly concerned with the problem of employability of graduates in the local labor market. Hence, they did not view internationalization of curriculum as essential for preparation of graduates for the realities of the globalized world. The content of courses and of academic programs changed more as a result of the desire to bring Kazakhstani programs in compliance with international standards, which are viewed as being superior to the Soviet or local ones, than as a result of the commitment to produce multiculturally aware global citizens able to operate in a culturally diverse workplace. A survey on internationalization in Kazakhstan conducted by Maudarbekova and Kashkinbayeva (2013) revealed that the perceptions about the importance of internationalization of curriculum are changing. Of their respondents, 67 percent thought that internationalization of curriculum should become a priority of educational reform. However, the perceptions have not yet resulted in any significant changes given the troubling level of over centralization in curriculum control (Tazabek, 2016). Universities also are not yet concerned with recruiting international students and are rarely engaged

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

113

in programs of international exchange or serve as hosts for study abroad participants from universities in other countries. Meanwhile, in certain disciplines, such as medicine, Kazakhstan has a potential to be attractive for international students from the former Soviet Union and Asia. In health sciences Kazakhstan has managed to retain some of the good traditions of Soviet education and to introduce some novel approaches from the West. International students from developing countries can receive good quality education in medicine at a lower cost than in the Western countries. This potential is not yet utilized to its full extent. Finally, little attention is paid by the government to the development of local research capacity on international higher education or to greater engagement of experts in the field into the national level decision-making process. Most importantly, the dominant view of internationalization is as universal good. There is little critical discussion of internationalization and the way it can become a mechanism for foreign colonization. Blind adoption of international practices may lead to the loss of the national culture, to the disregard of the positive original innovations in higher educational reform, as well as to the failure to recognize the existence of domestic scholars, who have the transformative capacity as a result of training received abroad or extensive education or experience accumulated in the domestic higher education system. While appreciating the value of international best practices, it is important not to omit the educational traditions of the nomadic past, the positive legacies of the Soviet time, as well as the innovative ideas suggested by contemporary Kazakhstani intellectuals. In summary, internationalization in Kazakhstan has been an important mechanism underlying the process of modernization of higher education. It has a promise to contribute to reforms even more if the government of Kazakhstan starts to look at it more strategically, if it starts to track previous successes and failures and gathers systematic information on lessons learned. In addition, while playing the goal-setting role, the government should ensure a greater engagement and initiative in internationalization from universities. At the same time, a greater coordination effort, as well as support for internationalization research is also necessary. Finally, while exploiting the developmental potential of internationalization, the government of Kazakhstan, as well as its higher education institutions, may also benefit from assuming a more critical perspective and start to recognize that internationalization could at times be more evil than good in that it may threaten local knowledge, traditions, and national interests.

REFERENCES Campbell, A.C. (2016). International scholarship graduates influencing social and economic development at home: The role of alumni networks in Georgia and Moldova. Current Issues in Comparative Education 19(1): 76–91. De Wit, H. (2011). Internationalization Misconceptions. International Higher Education, 64: 6–7. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). (2015). Annual Report 2015. https://www.daad. org/files/2016/08/daad-jahresbericht-2015-en.pdf Hudzik, J.K. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization: From Concept to Action. NAFSA ePublications. http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedfiles/nafsa_home/resource_library_assets/ publications_library/2011_comprehen_internationalization.pdf Jumakulov, Z., and Ashirbekov, A. (2016). Higher education internationalization: Insights from Kazakhstan. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 6, 35–55.

114

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Kuzembayuly, A., and Abil, E. (2006). History of Kazakhstan: A Textbook for High Schools. Kostanay, Kazakhstan: Kostanai Regional Institute of Historical Research. National Centre for the Bologna Process. Li, A. (2018). “One belt one road” and Central Asia: A new trend in internationalization of higher education? International Higher Education, 92: 14–16. Li, A., and Ashirbekov, A. (2014). Institutional engagement in internationalization of higher education: Perspectives from Kazakhstan. International Higher Education, 78: 17–19. Maudarbekova, B., and Kashkinbayeva, Z. (2014). Internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116: 4092–4097. Ministry of Education and Science (MES) (2012a). Strategy for Academic Mobility. http://www. tarsu.kz/images/dokumenty/Strategy_for_academic_mobility_in_the_Republic_of_ Kazakhstan_for_2012-2020.pdf Ministry of Education and Science (MES) (2012b). State Program for the Development of Education 2011–2020. https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2012/state-program-educationdevelopment-republic-kazakhstan-2011-2020-5506 National Centre on the Bologna Process and International Academic Mobility (NCBPAM) (2019). Operations Analytics January–July 2019. https://drive.google.com/ file/d/1vir8WxEKmvOc3WcqW-vpKLIHu8aij4qX/view Nessipbayeva, O. (2015). The Bolashak Program in building a democratic and prosperous society. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191: 2275–2279. Omirgazy, D. (2018). Kazakhstan’s Bolashak Programme has awarded 12,831 Scholarships in 25 years. Astana Times, September 27, 2018. https://astanatimes.com/2018/04/kazakhstansbolashak-programme-has-awarded-12831-scholarships-in-25-years/ Salmi, J. (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World Class Universities. The World Bank. Silova, I., and Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2008). How NGOs React: Globalization and Education Reform in the Caucuses. Central Asia, and Mongolia. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Tazabek, S. (2016). Internationalizing curriculum for innovation: Opportunities and challenges for entrepreneurial universities in Kazakhstan. Proceedings of the Eurasian Higher Education Leaders Forum 2016: 24–28. Tazhibayeva, A. (2017). Internationalization of Higher Education in Kazakhstan: State Policies and Institutional Practices. PhD dissertation, Nazarbayev University. Tomusk, V. (2011). The geography and geometry of the Bologna Process. In Silova, I. (ed.), Globalization on the Margins: Education and Postsocialist Transformations in Central Asia. Charlotte, NC : IAP, pp. 41–60. Vaida, M. (2018). How has “Bolashak” become a game-changing educational project? Central Asia Monitor, 16. https://camonitor.kz/31990-kak-bolashak-stal-proryvnym-obrazovatelnymproektom.html

CHAPTER NINE

The Rhetoric and Reality of Malaysian Higher Education Internationalization Policy and Its Strategic Initiatives NORZAINI AZMAN AND CHANG DA WAN

INTRODUCTION Internationalization has become the buzz word in higher education policy and practices, and it continues to dominate the discussion in most countries around the world, including Malaysia. Although higher education (HE) in Malaysia has always had an international element, given that the country inherited a British university when it gained its independence, the current policy discourse in Malaysia on the internationalization of higher education emphasizes competitiveness, global recognition, and having the ability to attract non-Malaysian students into the higher education institutions (HEIs). While internationalization of Malaysian HEIs is inevitable, given the twenty-first century globalization and knowledge-based economies, and the strong interdependence between education and economic and socio-political development, internationalization of higher education is first and foremost driven by economic forces and manifested explicitly through the concept of the international hub. Both the government and the university sector have responded decisively to the new challenges of a globalized economy through the process of internationalization by making significant changes and developments spearheaded by socio-economic and political transformation plans. These are the main discourses of internationalization, as articulated in various higher education policy documents, starting with the National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2007–2020. This chapter examines the implementation of policies and strategies of internationalizing higher education in Malaysia by analyzing the current system of higher education and policy directions for internationalization within the macro-political and socio-economic contexts. The chapter also explores the national policies initiated towards the implementation and promotion of programs aimed at internationalization. Finally, the chapter concludes with a critical review of the issues facing internationalization of Malaysia’s higher education system and suggestions for re-orientating the higher education internationalization agenda.

115

116

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

THE MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM The Malaysian higher education system is made up of both public and private institutions. The public sector of higher education comprises 20 public universities, 36 polytechnics, and 94 community colleges. The private sector includes 47 private universities, 10 foreign university branch campuses, 34 private university colleges, and 347 colleges. As of December 2018, 552,702 students were enrolled in the 20 public universities with 96,370 and 26,069 students in polytechnics and community colleges respectively. Polytechnics and community colleges are almost exclusively for Malaysian students. Approximately 304,587 students were enrolled in the 47 private universities and 84,999 in the university colleges (Figure 9.1). The public universities employed 31,528 academic staff while the private institutions employed 14,716 academic staff. A total of 7,281 and 2,764 academics were employed in

FIGURE 9.1: Student enrollment in Malaysian higher education institutions. Source: Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), Malaysia (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).

FIGURE 9.2: International academic staff in Malaysian higher education institutions (HEIs). Source: Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), Malaysia (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

117

the polytechnics and community colleges respectively (MoHE, 2018). In 2018, 4.6 percent and 13.1 percent of the academic staff in public and private institutions were non-Malaysian citizens (see Figure 9.2). The proportion of international academics in public institutions has been declining gradually, from 8.3 percent in 2013 to 4.6 percent in 2018. However, in the private institutions, the proportion has been fluctuating between 26.8 percent and 7.2 percent over the last six years. Tuition fees for Malaysians studying in public universities are kept to a minimal level, with the government subsidizing 90 to 95 percent of the fees, making public universities greatly dependent on government funding. But international students enrolled at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels pay full tuition fees, therefore encouraging universities to expand international student enrollment.

INITIATIVES IN INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Malaysia uses centralized and comprehensive strategic approaches, which arguably have addressed both broader national priorities and institutional interests in internationalization. Some of the bold and multifaceted policy initiatives have had positive effects on the system, and, evidently, have attracted much-needed public attention to the government’s policies in general.

Transnational Programs Malaysia can be regarded as a pioneer in transnational education (TNE) programs. Twinning arrangements first began in the 1970s with Institut Teknologi MARA (now UiTM) with universities in the United States. The innovative idea was to offer international programs to a larger group of Malaysian students at reduced costs. Concurrent with that initiative, the ethnic quota in public universities had also driven private colleges, which were not allowed to offer degree programs, to resort to twinning programs to provide greater access. Hence, twinning programs, in which students completed part of the program in Malaysia and the rest of it abroad, leading to a degree from the particular foreign university, became popular in the late 1980s and intensified further until the enactment of the Private Higher Education Institutions Act 1996. Ever since the 1998 financial crisis, higher education policies and capacity building strategies have been enhanced to stem the outflow of education funds to other countries. This resulted in the introduction of twinning programs and their evolution into what are commonly termed 3+0 degree programs, where an overseas degree program is fully conducted in the home country in partnership with a local institution. The Higher Education Statistics Agency in the UK in 2014 indicated that Malaysia was the top host country for overseas offshore provision/partnerships delivery for UK universities, surpassing China (56,340), Singapore (48,520), and Hong Kong (29,705). Almost all of these TNE students in Malaysia were with private education providers. Over the two decades from the 1980s to the 1990s, TNE continued to expand, and in 2012 TNE provision represented about 15.2 percent of the market share of accredited programs at private HEIs, equivalent to about 566 initiatives. An analysis of TNE’s contribution to Malaysian higher education shows that the majority of the collaborations were primarily with UK and Australian HEIs in the form of twinning, franchise, double/ joint degree programs, and branch campuses (The British Council, 2013). In 2010, there

118

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

were 3,218 joint, double, or franchise programs in Malaysia that received provisional or full accreditation (Knight and Sirat, 2011).

Education Hub The education hub remains the pivotal initiative in Malaysian government policies. Several developments in the 1990s led to the idea of an education hub in the Malaysian national agenda. First, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 saw the ringgit depreciate and, suddenly, overseas education became out of reach for many Malaysian students. The second key development was a concerted effort to improve the quality of private education. The Private Higher Educational Institutions Act laid out the criteria for setting up private institutions, including branch campuses, by foreign providers. Another piece of legislation created the National Accreditation Board (consolidated as the Malaysian Qualifications Agency or MQA) in 2007, an agency for accrediting private and public higher education institutions. Two higher education policy documents encapsulate Malaysia’s efforts to turn the country into an education hub. The National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2007–2010 (NHESP, 2007) formally launched the hub effort under the thrust of internationalization. The thrust aimed to make Malaysia an international hub of excellence through internationalization programs such as exchange of academics, students and courses, collaborative research, and networking linkages with renowned universities. The goal was to attract more international students to further their studies in HEIs. At the same time, local students would be expected to benefit from the interaction, exposure, and exchange of experiences with their international counterparts. Under the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), and under the identified twelve National Key Economic Areas (NKEAs) meant to boost Malaysia’s national income, the focus of the Education NKEA was on strengthening the private education services sector by increasing private consumption and investments as well as expanding education exports (ETP, 2010). The main focus was to promote private education, which includes cross-border higher education (e.g., twinning programs and branch campuses). The government further identified thirteen projects related to internationalization of higher education for implementation. Table 9.1 lists the relevant projects and their anticipated Growth National Income (GNI) contribution and job creation. Under the ETP, the higher education sector’s contribution to the GNI was expected to more than double in ten years: from RM 27 billion (2009) to RM 61 billion (2020).

TABLE 9.1 Relevant entry point project for education hub Relevant Entry Point Projects for Education Hub Expanding international distance learning Building an Islamic finance and business education discipline cluster Building a health sciences education discipline cluster Launching Iskandar EduCity

2020 GNI (RM Millions)

Jobs

350 1,190

3,920 4,365

2,870 1,016

11,854 1,164

Source: ETP, Economic Transformation Programme: A Roadmap for Malaysia (Putrajaya: Performance Management and Delivery Unit, 2010).

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

119

Malaysia’s education hub aspiration has expanded into three hub initiatives: KL EduCity, Iskandar EduCity and the Islamic Finance Education hub (IFE hub). In Iskandar EduCity there are currently seven higher education providers, including University of Reading Malaysia (UK), Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia (UK), University of Southampton Malaysia Campus (UK), Netherlands Maritime Institute of Technology (the Netherlands), Raffles University Iskandar (Singapore), Multimedia University (Malaysia), and Management Development Institute of Singapore (Singapore). EduCity provides common facilities (e.g., library, sports complex, dormitories) to reduce the capital cost and space required by each institution. Iskandar Malaysia also provides tax incentives to both institutions and employees to facilitate the growth of this economic zone. EduCity aims to have 16,000 students by 2025 (IRDA, 2015). However, EduCity has been plagued by some crucial challenges hindering the realization of the expected outcome and contribution as an education hub (Wan and Weerasena, 2018). The target number of students has not been as envisioned, with only 3,500 enrolled in 2017. One of the institutions was reported to be running at a considerable loss and another institution has yet to begin the construction of its campus. Malaysia continues to prioritize the education hub as a national agenda and to dedicate resources to planning and regulating cross-border higher education through the Malaysian Education Blueprint: Higher Education (MEBHE, 2015) 2015–2025. The blueprint has further increased the target of international student enrollment to 250,000 by 2025. Figure 9.3 shows the trend in international student enrollment in Malaysian HEIs over a period of thirteen years. Generally, there was an increase in total international student enrollment from 2007–2010 and from 2013–2017 for the private HEIs. A decline of 5.04 percent in international student enrollment in the private HEIs was recorded from 2017–2018. The decrease in student numbers was claimed to be the effect of more stringent enforcement such as regular audits and inspections (Tham, 2013). Public RUs are primarily domestic-market oriented, with a cap of 5 percent for international student enrollment at the undergraduate level. However, they are allowed to recruit students at postgraduate level. Malaysia has a long way to go before reaching the 250,000 student enrollment for 2025.

FIGURE 9.3: International student enrollment in public and private higher education institutions. Source: Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), Malaysia (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).

120

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 9.2 Top 10 sending countries (2016 – 2018) No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Grand Total

Country Bangladesh China Nigeria Indonesia Yemen Pakistan Iraq India Libya Iran

Year

Total

2016

2017

2018

34,455 11,718 15,262 8,653 5,942 5,292 3,264 2,320 3,246 4,055 94,207

30,525 14,854 13,529 9,762 6,248 6,033 3,257 2,825 3,317 3,068 93,418

22,152 16,357 11,118 10,783 7,376 6,850 3,645 3,272 3,309 3,185 88,047

87,132 42,929 39,909 29,198 19,566 18,175 10,166 8,417 9,872 10,308 275,672

Source: EMGS, Education Malaysia Global Services (2018).

Currently, most international students in Malaysia are from specific regions, notably the Middle East and Africa (Table 9.2). Interestingly, Malaysia does not seem to be a preferred destination for students in countries in Southeast Asia, except for Indonesian students (see Table 9.2). In summary, Malaysia’s education hub development shows a strong orientation towards economic benefits and educational capacity. There are clear economic benefits of the education hub, largely coming from student fees. However, the education hub project is neither designed with the goal of attracting the Malaysian diaspora back to Malaysia nor of attracting talents from abroad (Lee, 2014).

Malaysia’s Global Outreach through Soft Power Under Phase II of NHESP (2012–2017), the implementation plan called for the use of soft power as its international engagement policy. Titled “Malaysia’s Global Reach: A New Dimension,” the plan includes development projects, technical assistance, and training programs for “preferred partner countries.” The following two statements capture the essence of this plan: “Soft power in the higher education sector refers to the capabilities and intentions of institutions to capture the hearts and minds of local and international stakeholders to collectively accept values, ideologies and cultures of learning that can benefit communities” (NHEAP2, 2011: 18). The aim of the soft power approach is to win over the hearts and minds of the preferred partner countries with a long-term view of creating trade of higher education between Malaysia and preferred partner countries (NHEAP2, 2011). The “Malaysia’s Global Reach” program constituted six clusters through expert sharing, diplomatic bonding, community exchange, student and institutional fellowship, as well as skills and technology transfer among the partner countries (see Ministry of Education (MoE), 2015). A total of more than RM 3 million was spent on this program. Apart from the successful programs (see Table 9.3), an unpublished evaluation of the program showed that, on average, the number of students from the partner countries had increased by 18 percent in public universities and 24 percent in private institutions. In financial terms, the program has brought a return of RM12 for every RM1 spent.

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

121

TABLE 9.3 Summary of Malaysia’s Global Reach programmes Programmes

Countries

Development of the curriculum structure and content for Institute of Diplomatic Studies Malaysia Africa Summit in 2014 Formulation of Higher Education Blue Print Annual Young Leaders of the Future Dialogue The ASEAN Skills Initiative Series of higher education dialogues Community and public health-related projects

Timor-Leste African countries Palestine Indonesia Turkey, Maldives and Indonesia Turkey, Maldives and Indonesia Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Timor-Leste.

Source: Ministry of Education (MoE), Malaysia’s Global Reach: Touching Lives and Transforming Futures (Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015).

Internationalization Strategy with an ASEAN Focus In the Internationalization Policy 2011, Malaysia identified several priorities with a regional scope: building regional research centers, creating regional studies programs, and engaging with regional associations (Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), 2011a). The government has adopted the “prosper thy neighbour” policy, which emphasizes development aid to the ASEAN region to help reduce the developmental gaps among member countries (MoHE, 2011a). The policy showcases the desire for Malaysia to become a leader of education in the ASEAN region by exerting influence as a respected country with expertise in higher education. In addition, Malaysia is also very active in Southeast Asian initiatives in higher education. In 2008, SEAMEO RIHED collaborated with the Malaysian Quality Assurance Agency to help establish the ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN). Malaysia is also participating in the developmental phase of SEAMEO’s credit transfer system. Another project headed by MoHE is the Malaysia-Indonesia-Thailand (M-I-T) Student Mobility Program. Launched in 2009, the program has become a model of student mobility (SEAMEO RIHED, 2010). It later expanded to become the ASEAN Mobility International Student (AIMS) program with implementing partners from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines. In the first three years of AIMS, the number of participating undergraduate students grew from a total of 260 in 2011 to more than 500 in 2013 (Sirat, Azman, and Bakar, 2016). The one-semester to six-month credit transfer mobility programs were conducted in seven disciplines including hospitality and tourism, agriculture, language and culture, food and engineering. Evidently, Malaysia’s approach to regional engagement in higher education can be claimed as infusing aid with self-interest rather than providing purely unconditional aid. This was in a way an attempt to marry neoliberalism and realism for the sake of gaining soft power. This attempt is in line with the internationalization policy of Malaysia’s Global Reach, which underscores the concept of “aid before trade” through capacity building and training activities contributing to human development capital in partner countries. The Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV) International Development Cooperation in Higher Education Program is an example of the aid-before-trade initiative (see Wan and Sirat, 2018). This is a research project-based engagement funded by the MoHE to develop capacity building and foster collaboration between Malaysian academics

122

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and their counterparts in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Nevertheless, CLMV countries continue to be under-represented among international students. Data on the mobility of intra-ASEAN students within Malaysian higher education institutions showed that the top three sending countries during the period between 2009–2013 were Indonesia (totaling 18,816 students), Singapore (2,755 students), and Thailand (3,820 students), with postgraduate programs at master’s and PhD levels being the most popular for enrollment. The strategy of going regional in the pursuit of the internationalization of Malaysia’s higher education sector under the ASEAN community remains unclear, especially when Malaysia is not considered as a preferred destination by ASEAN countries except Indonesia.

Islamization of Global Strategy—Seizing Opportunities of the Islamic Finance Global Hub In 2010, the 10MP also underlined an effort of the government towards making Malaysia an international Islamic Financial Education (IFE) hub, which is in line with Malaysia’s vision in positioning the country as an Islamic Finance Global Hub (IFGH). The idea of Islamic finance global hub was mooted to steer the development of Islamic finance in Malaysia due to the enhancement of financial service quality for local and global customers. In addition, Malaysia has one of the largest Islamic finance markets in the world, with assets worth US$ 1 trillion (RM 3.2 trillion) and ownership of 67 percent of the world’s Islamic bonds (Sukuk) (ETP, 2010). In 2011, the MoHE released a comprehensive internationalization policy report that also recognized Malaysia’s connection with Islamic states and niche. Unlike the education hub, the IFE hub is more concerned about talent development and soft power as the goal was to contribute to the Islamic world. In 2006, Malaysia’s central bank, Bank Negara, created the International Centre for Education in Islamic Finance (INCEIF), which is a HEI dedicated to the teaching and training of scholars and professionals (master’s and doctorate programs available). Other HEIs including International Islamic University, Universiti Utara Malaysia, and Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia were involved in the writing up of the curriculum for Islamic finance ranging from degree to doctoral levels. As of 2013, Malaysia was the second largest Islamic finance education provider in the world and ranked first in terms of providing training and professional courses in Islamic Finance (Yurizk Academy, 2013). Based on the report by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF), and the National Economic Council (NEC), forty-four programs were offered by Islamic finance education providers in Malaysia in 2018, from diplomas to PhDs. More HEIs are now offering programs in Islamic economics and finance as well as in ICIFE domains (Syariah and Law, Islamic Finance, Islamic Economics, Islamic Accounting, and Islamic Management). It is projected that by 2020 the global total market demand for Islamic finance professionals will be more than 200,000, and Malaysia aspires to contribute to the manpower requirements (Rudnyckyj, 2013; Malaysian Islamic Finance Centre, 2015). Since the early 2000s, the number of Middle Eastern students has been rising steadily as the government has developed strategies to recruit students from Indonesia and the Middle East. In the last few years, Bangladesh students have surpassed Chinese students as the largest group of international students in Malaysia. Indonesia and Yemen have also

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

123

consistently ranked in the top five countries sending students to Malaysia. Among the top ten countries sending students to Malaysia now, only India and China are non-Islamic states (see Table 9.2). For a moderate Islamic country like Malaysia, building an education hub and educating Muslim students from around the world would seem like a logical internationalization policy strategy. Having strong diplomatic ties with Islamic countries, proximity to the most populous Islamic country in the world (Indonesia with a 237 million population), and extensive experience in cross-border education, Malaysia is well prepared to become an education center for the Islamic world. While Malaysia may not be deliberately recruiting or attracting Muslim students, external factors and events such as September 11 in the United States have pushed these students towards countries deemed more hospitable to them (Sirat, 2008). The MoHE has stated that Malaysia must capitalize on its Islamic niche and bilateral relations with the Middle East countries in order to recruit more students (Rashid, 2007). Since 2012, the MoHE has specifically organized education fairs in the Middle East and North Africa to recruit students.

THE RHETORIC OF “INTERNATIONAL” VS. REALITY The above examples have been selected to highlight the policy initiatives for internationalization development in Malaysia and the discourse of achievement engaged in by the government and its representatives. What follows is a different analysis to uncover the reality behind the rhetoric. The major challenges in the internationalization of the Malaysian higher education system are related to the value or the politics of internationalization in terms of the role of the education hub, students’ learning experience, and research and development. These challenges are multifaceted and exist at the levels of policy formulation, coordination and implementation, across sectors, and within the local higher education sector.

How International are the Education Hubs in Reality? Although statistics have shown that the number of international students has increased from 2005–2017 as a result of policy reforms, an overwhelming 90 percent of the students are from middle- and low-income countries such as Bangladesh, Nigeria, China, and Indonesia. Based on 2016–2018 data (see Table 9.2), and rearranged according to world regions, the most important world regions that international students come from are West Asia, Africa, Southeast Asia, East Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia. Graf ’s (2016) study also found that the average international student in Malaysia comes from one of the countries with much lower innovation status (measured by Global Innovation Index score) than Malaysia. Thus, Malaysia has proven to be attractive to the non-Anglophone students from much less developed countries, particularly those in western Asia and Africa. While it is acknowledged that China and India are currently the world’s largest exporters of students for overseas studies, there is still the question of why Malaysia has not been successful in attracting students from other parts of the world. The question is highly relevant since there has been a shift towards studying abroad for European and American students, in developing countries, particularly in China in the last ten years (IIE, 2008; Pan, 2010; 2013). Yet, Malaysia has not seen an increase in these student numbers despite the fact that most of the foreign providers and TNE programs are largely

124

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

from these Anglophone countries. This issue brings to the fore the rhetoric of internationalization aims which, in reality, seem to encourage unequal exchange of human capital and the creation of one-way student mobility between more developed to lesser developed countries. In addition, there is an uneasy mix of faculty from different countries in most of the Malaysian HEIs. Most HEIs tend to settle for local teaching staff, which raises the question of how truly international the teaching–learning experience would be in these institutions. Issues of salary, taxes, and staff quality, among many others, appear to be factors that affect the process of attracting, recruiting, and retaining international faculty. Aside from the possible rivalry generated by the salary rates between local and international staff, the pay scale continues to affect the capacity of institutions to attract and recruit the best talents. It must also be borne in mind that true internationalization requires a much greater diversity of nationalities and cultural backgrounds of both the student and faculty bodies. Thus, in terms of attracting foreign faculty (academic talent), the Malaysian policy documents seemed to have recognized this imperative, but the realities of Malaysian politics and society have somehow prevented the implementation of this policy.

“Look West” vs. “The Malaysian Model” One of the major paradoxes in the development of internationalization in the Malaysian higher education system is the continuous tendency to “Look West,” despite having a governmental policy to “Look East,” as well as wanting to develop into an international education hub (Wan, Sirat, and Abdul Razak, 2019). While Malaysia continues to project itself as the international education students’ hub, more than half of Malaysian students have chosen Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States as their study abroad destinations. International hub and foreign branch campuses, as well as partnerships between Malaysian universities and their counterparts abroad, continue to be dominated by universities from the West. Out of nine international branch campuses, only one is not from an Anglosphere country. This paradox, therefore, underlines the fact that the development of internationalization in Malaysian higher education remains colonized and dictated by the Western, and more specifically, the Anglosphere, paradigm. Although there have been efforts and initiatives to engage with countries in other Southeast Asian and other developing regions, the identity of Malaysia at most can only be considered a “Western” international hub in a moderate Muslim and fast-developing country. It is not a truly indigenous Malaysian identity that is driving the internationalization of higher education.

Synergy between Local and Foreign Institutions? Malaysia’s higher education system cannot at all be considered an equal playing field. The glaring division between public and private higher education is steeped in history and replete with barriers that segregate rather than integrate. As HEIs compete for the same resources and benchmark themselves against the leading universities, they begin to resemble one another (e.g., in their preoccupation with world-class status and international rankings). Rather than competition begetting excellence, competition may have actually stifled innovation and encouraged duplication. The key words that dominate the language in the higher education policy such as competitiveness, ranking, branding, and selfpromotion clash with the emphasis on cooperation and synergy expected of knowledge

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

125

institutions. This is probably why there is less synergy between HEIs in the education hubs and more acceptance of competitive and hype consumerism of internationalization. According to Singh, Schapper, and Mayson (2010), competition among the Malaysian HEIs has generally led to mission drifts and institutional isomorphism. As government entities, the public HEIs are obligated to fulfill their social contracts to the nation in serving the public by advancing knowledge through research, developing the intellect and personalities of students, and engaging in public service. They are obliged to maintain the cap on the percentage of international students at both undergraduate and postgraduate courses supported by public money. Such a restrained internationalization strategy is intended to serve the purpose of enriching the learning environment for local students. But lately, with funding constraints imposed by the government, the public universities are joining the race to become suppliers of revenue-generating services through their competitive executive programs via their University Holding Companies. As most public HEIs are now at high risk for financial sustainability, international students form the most readily available source. This has further increased the competition between private and public HEIs as both HEIs will be competing for a homogeneous group of students. In addition, there is an assumption by the government that the presence of foreign providers in the form of branch campuses would automatically promote synergy between local and foreign institutions. The reality is that local and foreign institutions often operate in isolation under different sets of regulations. Without a conscious effort to engage them, branch campuses have been prone to serving only the privileged. Thus, the rhetoric of Malaysian education hubs as “truly global” and “developing strategic partnerships” fails to address not only the lack of synergy between institutions but also that between HEIs and external stakeholders such as industries and local communities.

Education Hub as Knowledge Reproduction Rather than Knowledge Production? Internationalization, particularly through the education hubs, is expected to contribute to Malaysia’s competitiveness in the knowledge economy. While there is some truth in this interpretation, the centrality of knowledge generation remains questionable in all the education hubs. While the IFE hub is a leader in Islamic finance education, it is weak in research and lacks a budget for R & D activities (Mohd Noor, Nooh Joni, and Borhan, 2014). For the private HEIs, the other goal, increasing revenue, seems to have superseded knowledge generation. Consequently, there is no real emphasis on indigenous or local knowledge in both the policies and research in the education hubs. TNE programs generally contain curricula exported directly from the home institution in the West. Discussions related to research are noticeably absent from discussions on TNE provisions. In short, the education hubs raise serious questions about epistemology, and, as argued by Lee (2014), this suggests that hubs may be more accurately termed as knowledge reproduction rather knowledge production. Other researchers (Marginson, 2011; Knight, 2011) have also lamented that economic perspectives adopted in many developing countries have had a significant effect on the development of research capacity as activities likely to lead to knowledge generation have been displaced by an exaggerated adaptation to market demands. Thus, despite decades of independence or self-rule, Malaysian higher education scholars are arguably still Eurocentric or dominated by Western worldviews in their scholarly undertakings. This could be due to several reasons but one of the key factors is

126

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

that they have mostly concentrated on the reproduction of the intellectual outputs of Western countries, including their theories and methodologies of selection of research problem priorities. Another factor could be that the Malaysian HEIs have not been as relevant to the needs and concerns of their local communities. This is in spite of the substantial resources expended to boost research and innovation grants. It is assuring, however, to note that the scenario is slowly changing, especially in the research universities. Through internationalization, university researchers are encouraged to generate their own indigenous concepts, definitions, theories, and methods which could guide the intellectual development in their research and academic fields while being more relevant to their local or regional setting. So, the question for Malaysian HEIs therefore is not whether to internationalize but how to internationalize most effectively: How to pursue internationalization strategies that strengthen their internal institutional and intellectual capacities, qualities, reputations and competitiveness as well as their potential to contribute to the national development agendas as stated in the Malaysian Development and Economic Plans? The policymakers must, in their rhetoric, also encourage local HEIs to build research capacity from the ground up and not focus single-mindedly on importing infrastructure and resources from foreign countries. After all, a foundational supporting structure that is indigenous and built from the ground up holds better promise for ventures such as education hubs (Wilkins and Huisman, 2012; Knight, 2011).

International Students’ Experience with Multicultural and Global Citizenship Education Issues regarding international students overlap and, as such, are difficult to address singly. To begin with, the rhetoric of reports and strategic plans generally cites “educating global citizens” and “multiculturalism” as primary goals of internationalization. The question is: do international students really experience a multicultural and global citizenship learning environment in the Malaysian HEIs? How realistic is this objective given that most international students are from east and west Asia? A few studies conducted on international students’ experience have shown that Malaysian HEIs generally face challenges in creating a new multicultural learning environment where international and local students study, connect, and work with one another across classrooms and local communities (Pandian, 2008; Malaklolunthu and Selan, 2011). In Malaysia, the fact remains that very few policymakers pay attention to student experience in the larger scheme of internationalization. The common assumption is that bringing together students from nearby countries to partake in programs provided by largely Anglophone institutions automatically constitutes a multicultural learning environment. This is a classic misconception which assumes that students acquire intercultural and international competencies naturally if they study or complete their internship abroad or take part in an international class (Knight, 2011). In reality, it is more complicated. International students can completely seclude themselves from sharing experiences with other students and other sections of the population. As research findings have shown, some international students do not integrate easily and are inclined to seek the company of their compatriots. Students also tend to seclude themselves from sharing experiences with other sections of the population and therefore exclude themselves from the culture. Other findings include lecturers’ inability to take advantage of the benefits that students have to offer in terms of the cultural diversity and knowledge they bring,

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

127

unequal treatment by certain lecturers, and insufficient socialization activities in the universities (Pandian, 2008; Teng, 2016). Another question that also arises is what is meant by “global citizenship” as stated in the MEBHE, and how should it be created or taught? As stated in the MEBHE (2015: 1–15): Every graduate will have the relevant disciplinary knowledge and skills, ethics and morality as well as the appropriate behaviours, mindsets, cultural, and civilizational literacy to advance them to a high level of personal well-being. They will be global citizens with a strong Malaysian identity, ready and willing to contribute to the harmony and betterment of the family, society, nation, and global community. However, how exactly local and international students would be transformed into “global citizens” through internationalization is absent in the policy as well as in academic discourses. Briefly, global citizenship education calls for “epistemological pluralism” (Abdi, 2011), which is the inclusion of indigenous world views and perspectives or alternative knowledge frameworks (Swanson, 2011). This means that graduates with global citizenship should possess the skills and framework to understand others from various cultures from different parts of the world. Arguably, what has been underlined in the policy can be considered as mere rhetoric as many have noted that the concept of a global citizen has often been used to highlight global market competence and neoliberal sentiments (Gacel-Ávila, 2005; Gaudelli, 2009). To our knowledge, the outcomes of global citizenship in Malaysian higher education seem to be neither formally required nor assessed. This is hardly surprising as the overall goal of Malaysian higher education especially for the private HEIs is to produce (and reduce) students to become knowledge workers with technical skills who can find jobs in the local or global market. Swanson (2011) further claimed that policy outcomes towards global citizenship often served to legitimate internationalization policy statements and branding as well as to show that the higher education system is promoting “cutting-edge” education.

International Students’ Interaction and Engagement Social integration and community engagement constitute one of the six important elements highlighted by the Malaysian Internationalization Policy for Higher Education (MoHE, 2011a). The policy plan underscores the need for the Malaysian community to adapt and accept international students as part of the community, by allowing full integration and the delivery of “Malaysian hospitality” (90). It goes on to propagate that community acceptance is predicated by their understanding of how best to profit from internationalization activities. Despite Malaysia being ranked as one of the top destinations for international students, some students reportedly found studying in Malaysia an overwhelming life and cultural transition. Limited studies on the topic have found that international students faced various challenges including culture and communication, inadequate facilities, loss of social support, and language difficulties (Al-Zubaidi and Richards, 2009; Yusoff and Chelliah, 2010; Malaklolunthu and Selan, 2011). The problems most frequently highlighted were the acts of negative stereotyping and racism they experienced. Somehow, regional tendencies and physical appearance tended to be identified with the unfair treatment and hostility experienced by the international students. This explains why certain international

128

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

students, particularly those from Africa and Bangladesh, are targeted over others. In addition, the Malaysian community has been increasingly agitated by the recent influx of Mainland Chinese, African, and Bangladeshi, especially due to many stories revolving around criminal activities. This has perpetuated the same negative images previously attached to Indonesian or Bangladeshi immigrant workers, who were perceived as a threat to national security. Of late, international students have expressed deeper concerns about their safety and security matters. What has exacerbated issues regarding the safety of international students is that the police and/or immigration officers have held some international students in lock-ups for a maximum of fourteen days, as allowed by the Federation Constitution Article 5. Currently, these international students have no recourse to any International Student Protection Framework, International Students’ Charter, or Students’ Ombudsman to ensure their safety and fair treatment. This “disconnect” between those responsible for policy, the educational service providers, the enforcement agencies, and the international students who are reliant on the local systems and structures is perhaps the most striking of the above findings and is of particular concern in terms of developing better responses to improving the safety and security of international students.

Declining Enrollment of International Students One of the ways hub development was to be achieved was through increasing the number of international students studying in Malaysia. For the last ten years or so, Malaysia has had increasing numbers of international students in the HEIs. However, from 2015 to 2016, the number of international students declined by 39 percent from approximately 68,000 to 41,400. The trend continued from 2017 to 2018 with a decline of 5.04 percent in international student enrollment in private HEIs. Students from Bangladesh and Nigeria constituted the most reduced number (ICEF, 2019). According to International Consultants for Education and Fairs (ICEF, 2019), issues related to student visas and the lack of co-ordination among agencies (including inconsistent requirements for visas) are some of the main reasons for the reduction in international student numbers. Changes to immigration policy ranging from instituting a ban from certain countries (in Africa) to placing international students under deportation proceedings for purportedly unknown violations also contributed to this problem. Such policies, in combination with competition for international students from other countries, have contributed to a chilling effect on internationalization in Malaysia. This also shows up inconsistencies in the policy calls for internationalization: even while internationalization is being promoted, tight rules are evidently being implemented by immigration to curb international student access. Although the scenarios above point to the reality of the policy rhetoric, they are just one side of a multifaceted issue. Immigration and police audits in the past have revealed that a significant number of international students not only had no visa or appropriate documentation to stay in Malaysia, they also had inadequate English-language skills, or had not registered for courses. In addition, several high-profile cases of violence, visa fraud, and drug trafficking involving students had compelled the government to tighten the reins on granting international student visas. These events have also indicated that a segment of the private HEIs, which are highly dependent on income from international students, may have taken advantage of their freedom as gatekeepers. In this context, Education Malaysia Global Services (EMGS, 2018) was founded in 2012 as an organization to oversee student

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

129

visa matters, including applications and renewal of student passes online. However, in spite of the new efforts to improve the immigration system, complaints persist about visas and study permits still not being processed in an efficient or timely manner. The ICEF (2019) report also highlighted that limitations on international students to undertake any form of paid employment, including internship, while studying in Malaysia has further dampened the interest of international students. The other factor is reputational damage, believed to be the other main reason for rapidly falling numbers of students from the Middle East and African countries. This damage is the result of a small number of highly publicized reports of mistreatment of Arab and African students in recent years, which has tarnished Malaysia’s reputation as a fair, safe, and tolerant destination. The effect of the negative incidents was exacerbated by a perceived lack of coherence in the relevant authorities’ handling of the issues, and the consequent reaction by the sending countries’ press. Countries that do well in attracting international students, for instance, the UK and Australia, have long proven to be responsive to the needs of international students, for example, by providing part-time employment opportunities. Such part-time and postemployment opportunities provide international students with valuable hands-on work experience, and they also allow them to be more independent, both financially and socially. Table 9.4 shows the comparative review of employment opportunities in six countries. The countries were chosen on the basis of the numbers of international students they attracted. The above issues regarding immigration and employment clearly reveal the intersection between national objectives to attract international students and immigration policies

TABLE 9.4 Comparative review of employment opportunities among five countries Malaysia

Singapore

UK

US

Canada

Australia

During Semester

None

16 hrs/ week

20 hrs/ week

20 hrs/ week

20 hrs/ week

20 hrs/ week

During Vacation

20 hrs/ week (restricted)

Full-time

Full-time

Full-time

40 hrs/ week

No restriction of hours

Internship

Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary not allowed not possible allowed for allowed F1(Academic Study) and M1(Vocational Study) visa

Additional Internship Internship Information must be part must be of course part of course

F1 (Academic Study) and M1(Vocational Study) visa allowed for working part-time & internship

Voluntary Work not allowed permit required for all internship Students in eligible institutions listed can work off-campus while other institutions require work permit

Work-based learning must be attached to qualification

Source: Enrizon, (2019); Ministry of Manpower, Work Pass Exemption for Foreign Students (2019).

130

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

aimed at protecting national security. If policies are developed and implemented in isolation from one another, or are directly at cross-purposes, policy effectiveness will suffer. It is also clear that to achieve the goal of attracting international students to Malaysia, the important keys to solving the conundrum are in the immigration and employment policies. In order to attract and recruit students from all over the world, Malaysia needs to put into place a set of supporting policies and measures regarding recruitment, entry permits, and part-time employment.

THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION As internationalization of higher education will remain a priority in the foreseeable future, there is a need to assess the sustainability of internationalization, particularly the education hubs. Questions such as whether a critical mass already exists of local and international actors working together and committed for the long term, and whether existing policies positively impact the direction and progress of internationalization, need to be answered. More importantly, in the longer term, will policies succeed in furthering the economic and political goals they set out to achieve? Undoubtedly, determining the effectiveness of Malaysian internationalization policies is challenging and, in most cases, efforts to do so have mostly focused on easily measurable, quantifiable outputs, such as the number of international students and the number of international courses. In addition, financial analyses in the form of return of investment is another easily quantifiable measure used, one that often appeals to Malaysian policymakers. However, statistics are often meaningless when taken out of context. Specific data and clear answers about the questions raised above and issues of impact are still scarce in Malaysia. In fact, in most cases, evaluation of impact appears not to have been built into policy implementation structures. Under the soon-to-be launched twelfth Malaysia Plan (12MP 2020–2025), internationalization of higher education remains a politically strategic and economically promising policy area. Various suggestions for new policies have been forwarded by the MoE for inclusion in the plan. Among them is a review of the current tax incentives and its availability to a wider segment of the private HE industry (i.e., beyond science, technical, and vocational). Since private higher education is still considered a service industry and will fall under the tourism sector, there is a plan to develop and promote a different tourism niche which is edu-tourism. This will require close collaboration between the MoE and another ministry (Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture). Image and branding will also be focused on the ten new markets proposed by ICEF (2019), which include Indonesia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and India. The Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE) will be expected to develop a new set of criteria for Marketing Development Grants and to accelerate the utilization of the Services Export Fund for the internationalization of Malaysian higher education overseas. In addition, the Ministry of Finance’s assistance is needed to incentivize HEIs to support the MoE’s new policy on TNE programs with HEIs overseas and/or on setting up branch campuses overseas. Finally, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) is expected to intensify Government-to-Government economic cooperation through leveraging on new or existing regional and bilateral FTAs (Free Trade Areas), especially in ASEAN countries and in Japan and South Korea. In sum, the thrust of internationalization in the 12MP is expected to be focused on the role of incentives and policies in supporting the private HEIs and internationalization as a service industry.

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

131

CONCLUSION Internationalization policies have been used as policy instruments of Malaysian modernization, competitiveness, knowledge economy, soft power, and as a means to deriving various other economic and non-economic benefits. The development is, by and large, regulated at the central level with strategic stakeholders managing different facets of the implementation. As in many policy initiatives, a gap between rhetoric and reality commonly exists when action falls short of grand visions. Despite the positive contributing factors and various achievements, arguably a range of systemic, capacity, financial factors that (potentially) stands in the way of Malaysia realizing the aspiration of becoming a global education hub. While it is anticipated that internationalization discourse will continue to be dominated by neoliberal economic frameworks, there is a need for Malaysia to humanize its internationalization effort and articulate a more balanced rationale for it.

REFERENCES Abdi, A.A. (2011). De-monoculturalizing global citizenship education: The need for multicentric intentions and practices. In Shultz, L., Abdi, A.A., and Richardson, G.H. (eds), Global Citizenship Education in Post-Secondary Institutions: Theories, Practices, Policies. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 25–39. Al-Zubaidi, K.O., and Richards, C. (2010). Arab postgraduate students in Malaysia: Identifying and overcoming the cultural and language barriers. Arab World English Journal, 1(1): 107–129. EMGS (2018). Education Malaysia Global Services. Available online: https://educationmalaysia. gov.my/ (accessed September 18, 2019). ETP (2010). Economic Transformation Programme: A Roadmap for Malaysia, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya: Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU). Gacel-Ávila, J. (2005). The internationalization of higher education: A paradigm for global citizenry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(2): 121–136. Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1): 68–85. Graf, A. (2016). Malaysia’s niche in international higher education: Targeting Muslim majority, commonwealth, and less-developed countries. TR aNS: Trans-Regional and-National Studies of Southeast Asia, 4(1): 5–40. ICEF (2019). International Consultants for Education and Fairs. Available online: https://www. icef.com/ (accessed September 18, 2019). IIE (2008). Educational Exchange between the United States and China. Available online: https:// www.suny.edu/files/sunynewsfiles/pdf/IIE-ChinaPaper.pdf (accessed September 15, 2019). IRDA (2015). Education Lab’s Mission. Available online: http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com. my/iskandar-malaysia-corridor-city-transformation-programme (accessed October 1, 2019). Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand, an innovation? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3): 221–240. Knight, J., and Sirat, M. (2011). The complexities and challenges of regional education hubs: Focus on Malaysia. Higher Education, 62(5): 593–606. Lee, J.T. (2014). Education hubs and talent development: Policymaking and implementation challenges. Higher Education, 68(6): 807–823.

132

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Malaklolunthu, S., and Selan, P.S. (2011). Adjustment problems among international students in Malaysian private higher education institutions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15: 833–837. Malaysian Islamic Finance Centre (2015). Malaysian Islamic Finance Centre. Available online: http://www.mifc.com/ (accessed October 5, 2019). Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and the public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(4): 411–433. MEBHE (2015). Malaysian Education Blueprint—Higher Education 2015–2025. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.my/en/dasar/1207-malaysia-education-blueprint-2013-2025/file (accessed October 3, 2019). Ministry of Education, Malaysia (2015). Malaysia’s Global Reach: Touching Lives and Transforming Futures. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2008). Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia: 2008 [Statistics of Higher Education in Malaysia: 2008]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2008 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2009). Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia: 2009 [Statistics of Higher Education in Malaysia: 2009]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2009 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2010). Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia: 2010 [Statistics of Higher Education in Malaysia: 2010]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2010 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2011a). Internationalization Policy for Higher Education in Malaysia 2011. Putrajaya: Malaysian National Printing Company. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2011b). Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia: 2011 [Statistics of Higher Education in Malaysia: 2011]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2011 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2012). Perangkaan Pendidikan Tinggi Negara: Sektor Pengajian Tinggi 2012 [National Education Statistics: Higher Education Sector 2012]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikantinggi/buku-perangkaan/2012 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2013). Perangkaan Pendidikan Tinggi Negara: Sektor Pengajian Tinggi 2013 [National Education Statistics: Higher Education Sector 2013]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikantinggi/buku-perangkaan/2013 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2014). Perangkaan Pendidikan Negara: Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi [National Education Statistics: Ministry of Higher Education]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/ buku-perangkaan/2014-1 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2015). Statistik Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia: 2015 [Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia: 2015]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2015-1 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2016). Statistik Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia: 2016 [Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia: 2016]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

133

my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2016-4 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2017). Statistik Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia: 2017 [Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia: 2017]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2017-5 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2018). Statistik Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia: 2018 [Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia: 2018]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2018-10 (accessed October 4, 2019). Mohd Noor, M.N., Nooh Joni, M.N., and Borhan, T. (2014). The global hub process: Malaysia’s vision towards becoming the Islamic finance global hub country. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(8): 206–223. NHEAP2 (2011). The National Higher Education Action Plan Phase 2. Available online: http:// www.ilo.org/dyn/youthpol/en/equest.fileutils.docHandle?p_uploaded_file_id=477 (accessed October 4, 2019). NHESP (2007). The National Higher Education Action Plan 2007–2010, Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education. Pan, S.Y. (2010). Changes and challenges in the flow of international human capital China’s experience. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(3): 259–288. Pan, S.Y. (2013). China’s approach to the international market for higher education students: Strategies and implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(3): 249–263. Pandian, A. (2008). Multiculturalism in higher education: A case study of Middle Eastern students’ perceptions and experiences in a Malaysian university. International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 4(1): 33–59. Rashid, N.F. (2007). MOHE Pushing for More Arab Students in Malaysia. Available online: http://web5.bernama.com/ssig/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=10874/ (accessed October 2, 2019). Rudnyckyj, D. (2013), From Wall Street to Halal street: Malaysia and the globalization of Islamic finance. The Journal of Asian Studies, 72(4): 831–848. SEAMEO RIHED (2010). M-I-T Student Mobility Programme: Pilot Project Review 2010. Available online: https://rIHEd.seameo.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/M-I-T_Project_ Review_2010.pdf (accessed October 4, 2019). Singh, J.K.N., Schapper, J., and Mayson, S. (2010). The impact of economic policy on reshaping higher education in Malaysia. In Devlin, M., Nagy, J., and Lichtenberg, A. (eds), Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education. Melbourne, Victoria: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia, pp. 585–595. Sirat, M. (2008). The impact of September 11 on international student flow into Malaysia: Lessons learned. International Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 4(1): 79–95. Sirat, M., Azman, N., and Bakar, A.A. (2016). Harmonization of higher education in Southeast Asia regionalism: Politics first and then education. In Robertson, S.L., Olds, K., Dale, R., and Dang, Q.A. (eds), Global Regionalisms and Higher Education: Projects, Processes and Politics. Northampton, MA : Elger, pp. 103–123. Swanson, D. (2011). Parallaxes and paradoxes of global citizenship: Critical reflections and possibilities of praxis in/through an international online course. In Schulz, L., Abdi, A.A.,

134

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and Richardson, G.H. (eds), Global Citizenship Education in Post-Secondary Institutions: Theories, Practices, Policies. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 120–139. Teng, R. (2016). The Quality of Private Higher Education in Malaysia. Available online: https:// www.theedgemarkets.com/article/quality-private-higher-education-malaysia (accessed October 4, 2019). Tham, S.Y. (ed.) (2013). Internationalizing Higher Education in Malaysia: Understanding, Practices and Challenges. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. The British Council (2013). International Higher Education. Available online: https://www. britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/tne_classification_frameworkfinal.pdf (accessed October 4, 2019). Wan, C.D., and Sirat, M. (2018). Internationalization of the Malaysian higher education system through the prism of south-south cooperation. International Journal of African Higher Education, 4(2): 79–90. Wan, C.D., and Weerasena, B. (2018). EduCity, Johor: A Promising Project with Multiple Challenges to Overcome. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Wan, C.D., Sirat, M., and Abdul Razak, D., (eds) (2019). Higher Education in Malaysia: A Critical Review of the Past and Present for the Future. Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press. Wilkins, S., and Huisman, J. (2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in higher education. Higher Education, 64(5): 627–645. Yurizk Academy (2013). Global Islamic Finance Education Report (GIFER) 2013. Available online: http://www.slideshare.net/joyabdullah/global-islamic-finance-education-special-r (accessed September 17, 2019). Yusoff, Y.M. and Chelliah, S. (2010). Adjustment in international students in Malaysian public university. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1(3): 275–278.

CHAPTER TEN

Internationalization of Indian Higher Education Aligning with the Mission of Knowledge Enhancement JULIE VARDHAN

INTRODUCTION The shift in economy from materialistic modes of production to that of an economy based on knowledge has resulted in universities and higher education institutions stressing the importance of producing knowledge—knowledge that is globally relevant. Since knowledge is considered universal in application and ideally should be universal in reach, the internationalization of higher education is being taken up vigorously by universities and higher education institutions. Jane Knight’s definition of internationalization is perhaps the most widely accepted: “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into the purpose, functions (teaching, research, and service), and delivery of higher education” (2004: 26). Although the Indian higher education system has been considered to be international since ancient times, the various international rankings do not seem to acknowledge this aspect currently (Times Higher Education, 2020; QS World University Rankings, 2020). International in India is understood to mean monitoring the inflow and outflow of students and teachers, and ensuring that the curriculum is on a par with the global standards. Internationalization of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is an issue of great interest to policymakers at the higher education institutions and governments because economic performance is affected by the growing cross-border flows of knowledge, knowledge-workers, and students (OECD, 2004; ACE, 2009; NAFSA, Hudzik, 2011; Hawawini, 2011). That higher education has a direct impact on the economic growth and development, especially in the knowledge era, has been endorsed by UNESCO (2008: 1): “one of the undisputed impacts of the adoption of the Knowledge Society as the leitmotif for economic development is that higher education and research have been reconceptualised as central to economic growth and national competitiveness.” The new knowledge economy has a direct association with the globalization dimensions—ease in international trade and access to increasing use of information technology in various aspects of management. The internationalization of higher education, however, involves the interplay of a number of activities ranging from 135

136

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

knowledge production and disbursement to the interpretation of knowledge in different academic landscapes. Schulte (2019) mentions that developing countries, in particular, face the challenge of not only providing access to higher education to a wider population base but also of ensuring that the graduates are competitive for the knowledge economy (Altbach, 2013; Teferra, 2016). A number of studies on the integration of higher education with the knowledge economy has been taken up in various countries. P˘a unic˘a, Matac, Motofei, and Manole (2011) elaborated on the role of higher education in knowledge economy in Australia; Pilkington (2012) made a study on the Europeanization of French Higher education; Gopinathan and Lee (2011) on the strategy adopted by Higher education institutions in Singapore due to effects of globalization; Ochilov (2014) deliberated if higher education could be considered as the driving force for economic growth in Uzbekistan; Hristova, Petrobska, and Dimitrova (2013) on the impact of internationalization on higher education of Macedonia; Vujicˇic´, and Ristic´ (2015) considered the impact of EU integration on Serbian Higher education; Wan (2011) conducted a study on the reforms brought in in Hong Kong post-massification of education. Similarly the study by Schulte (2019) explores how China has been expanding the internationalization of its higher education in the last two decades by focusing on building a national innovation system, creating world-class research universities and contributing in producing knowledge workers (Huang, 2015; Kennedy, 2016; Chen, 2012). With the emphasis on innovation by these universities, the author argues how Chinese higher education has been reorganized to adapt to the knowledge economy. Huber, Gunderson, and Stephens (2019), in their study, explore the role of public and private universities and the relation between education expenditure and wage dispersion, with public education expenditure found to be associated with lower wage dispersion, whereas private education expenditure is associated with greater wage dispersion. Stukilana (2008) discusses the importance of creating multidisciplinary focus and suggests that creating an integrated educational environment would help students be prepared for the knowledge economy. Wan (2011) mentions that the reforms initiated by several countries in the field of education have been to initiate private sector practices in the public educational institutions. Some of the developed countries, such as the United States, the UK, and Australia, also initiated these reforms. Higher education in several countries is regarded as an indicator of the employability of graduates and their ability to contribute to the knowledge-based economy emerging in the developed world (Freeman and Thomas, 2005). Universities have integrated the globalization tenets by way of online programs, increasing the mobility of students, and making changes to the academic curriculum. These are among various aspects being incorporated in several countries. The objective of this chapter is to explore the aspects of internationalization being undertaken in a developing country with a huge aspirational and young population base. This chapter will explore the relationship between the academic capitalism brought about through internationalization and the ancient ideology of the Indian education system. Knowledge, according to the ancient Indian system, consists of two important principles: first, it is limitless and, second, it leads to the holistic development of the self. The higher education system, though, has to both cater to the needs of the knowledge economy and ensure that the knowledge is disseminated consistent with the demands of the economy. The next section will document the background of the Indian higher education sector. This will be followed by a section that will highlight the internationalization effects on the Indian higher education sector and the various aspects

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

137

that can be ascribed to internationalization. There is then a discussion on academic capitalism and the mission of universities, with the last section being the conclusion.

THE INDIAN HERITAGE IN HIGHER EDUCATION The Indian subcontinent was in ancient times a formidable stronghold of higher education, with Nalanda (existed between 427 and 1197 CE) and Taxila (existed between 600 BC and AD 500) being centers for the seekers of knowledge from around the world. This international dimension was incorporated into the indigenous system of higher education well until the introduction of the Western education system imported by the British. A number of researchers have mentioned these time phases in the development of higher education; one being the pre-independent or colonial model that dates back prior to 1947, and the other post-independence, after 1947, which is a blend of the indigenous and the Western models (Makkar, Gabriel, and Tripathi, 2008; Singh, 2013). The higher education sector has witnessed a tremendous increase in the number of universities/ university level institutions and colleges since the independence of India in 1947. The Indian economy saw a massive shift from the year 1991 onwards with liberalization, privatization, and globalization being welcomed in the economy. The real shift in the higher education system was witnessed during this time, when private institutions came into existence. The number of universities has increased from 723 in 2013–14 to 903 in 2017–18, an increase of almost 24.9 percent in five years, whereas the number of colleges has increased from 36,634 in 2013–14 to 39,050 in 2017–18, an increase of 6.6 percent (AISHE, 2019). India, with a population of 1.25 billion people (Census, 2011), and with 2.5 million youths in the age group of 15 to 24 years, which increases by 13 percent annually—an increase that is much greater than the average global growth rate, is an attractive market for higher education (Kanungo, 2015). The number of universities post-independence from 1950 to 2017 has risen more than thirty times. Along with the growing population, the number of students enrolled in higher education has been growing over the years. Enrollment has increased considerably over the last five years, from 323,36,234 in 2013– 14 to 366,42,378 in 2017–18. The overall growth is 13.3 percent during this period, which is shown in Figure 10.1.

FIGURE 10.1: Student enrollment in the higher education sector. Source: AISHE (2019).

138

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) has increased during the last five years, from 23.0 in 2013–14 to 25.8 in 2017–18. The increase in student enrollment can be explained by three facts: the growing population, with a greater awareness among people for education; a burgeoning middle class having aspirations to be fulfilled through education; and the growth in the global knowledge economy that transcends boundaries. Guruz (2008) suggests that a country’s capacity to take advantage of the global knowledge economy depends on its capacity to generate, disseminate, and share the knowledge (Ahmed and Iqbal, 2011). The study alludes to the fact that the increase in the number of students and the changing nature of the higher education institutions is because these institutions are adapting themselves to the requirements of a global world. India has always been considered as home to the generation and dissemination of knowledge since ancient times, yet with increasing globalization, the Indian higher education sector is witnessing a number of aspects related to internationalization.

INTERNATIONALIZATION EFFECTS IN THE INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR A study by Chen and Huang (2013) mentions that although internationalization is a common goal shared by many Asian countries the approaches used may vary considerably. In the study, four countries (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia) are examined to reveal two different approaches used by these countries—independent and cooperative. Japan and Taiwan have been considered as examples of the independent strategy where there is tighter control over the entering of foreign universities within their domestic boundaries. Singapore and Malaysia, on the other hand, are considered examples of the cooperative approach where there is a strong intention of learning from more mature systems of higher education. The universities in India have grown after independence, in the latter part of nineteenth century, and undergone major changes from India’s colonial past. The universities in the twenty-first century will bring further change, with the orientation of the economy shifting towards producing knowledge workers. The country has an independent strategy whereby although very few foreign universities are allowed to set up campuses, a number of private universities are setting up their base outside India. Moreover, student mobility has also been a part of the Indian education system with a large number of young students seeking their higher education on foreign shores. The government in India has to manage the concerns of access and equity for the entire eligible population, which is highly diversified economically and socially, while planning the internationalization strategy. Some of the features of the Indian higher education system relative to the internationalization aspect are given below.

Adoption of English as the Dominant Language in the Education Sector Within the internationalization context, and post colonialism, India has been trying to broaden the range of teaching in English. Much of the non-Western world had European university models imposed on them by erstwhile colonial education systems. China and India are examples where, even though a number of well-established systems already existed, the European system and the English language were introduced (Altbach, 2004). The inclusion of English as a medium of instruction has been a step towards integrating the students with the international requirements of the language, with majority of the

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

139

private universities complying with it. Although the laws regarding inclusion of Hindi as the national language have faced much debate, English continues to be the dominant language for academics, and for business purposes throughout the country. English proficiency is required not just for instruction but in order for much needed research to be recognized by the international community. Bauwens, Mion, and Thisse (2007) have pointed to the fact that graduate teaching and scientific publishing are expected to be carried out in English, even in non-English speaking countries, and the study cites the examples of several Asian countries.

Proliferation of Various Types of Higher Education Institutions The Indian higher education system has transformed into a loose configuration of various types of institutions, namely the central universities, state universities, private universities, and deemed universities. The central universities are administered by central government; state universities are governed and administered by state governments; state private universities are located in their respective state boundaries and governed by Act of the State Legislatures but managed by the institutions themselves as private organizations; and deemed universities enjoy the academic status and privileges of a university, which is granted by the Department of Higher Education, Government of India. With 48 central universities, 394 state universities, 325 state private universities, and 125 deemed universities, the higher education model loosely follows the British model but also incorporates some parts of the American system. For example, although the state universities are under the state governments, as in a federal structure, the central universities and the institutes of national importance are under the central government (Ahmed and Iqbal, 2011). The emergence of private universities has added a new dimension to the Indian education landscape, bringing in newer competition, governance, and regulations. The number of universities and similar institutions listed on the AISHE portal has increased from 723 in 2013–14 to 903 in 2017–18, an increase of almost 24.9 percent, as shown in Table 10.1, with a consistent rise in the state private universities, from 153 in 2013–14 to 262 in 2017–18. Evidently, the increases in state private and state public universities are very high over the five-year period. These are indicative of the marketization and globalization effects on the education system.

TABLE 10.1 Major university types and number of universities Major University Type State Public University State Private University Deemed University-Private Institute of National Importance Central University Deemed University-Government Source: AISHE, 2019.

Number of University 2013–14

2014–15

2015–16

309 153 80 68 42 36

316 181 79 75 43 32

329 197 79 75 43 32

2016–17 2017–18 345 233 79 100 44 33

351 262 80 101 45 33

140

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY Education mobility is the most visible form of internationalization aspect, and it is also the most dominant perspective (Larsen, 2016). The inclusion of education in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) framework and factors such as marketization of education, a strong focus on students’ employability, and the increasing use of online technology have further facilitated the mobility of education (Barnett, 2016). International education has seen an increase in the mobility of students, faculty, educational programs, and even institutions moving to various international locations (Ullberg, 2015). The rise of private higher education has further increased the phenomenon, resulting in educational institutions becoming more like multinational corporations (Mundy, 2005). With the expansion of online learning, higher education has increasingly established itself as a knowledge disseminator crossing the borders of nationality, language, and cultural boundaries (Brooks and Waters, 2011; Hébert and Abdi, 2013 in Kahn and Misiaszek, 2019). The internationalization of higher education in India is mostly concerned with student mobility, with a large outward mobility of students. A number of foreign universities/ institutions have started to enter India and establish, mainly, franchise centers offering degrees/diplomas of their parent universities (which are not necessarily recognized by the parent universities in their own countries). Also, a number of Indian institutions are planning to set up similar centers in foreign countries. So while, on the one hand, India is importing, it is also engaging in export in this field. One of the other modes being explored in India driven by demand is open and distance education. It has been observed that almost every formal university has opted for a distance education cell and schools of correspondence courses (Tilak, 2008). The growing aspiration of the young population to gain international degrees and knowledge has ensured a continued demand for international programs in India. The number of Indian students abroad has increased from 55,444 in 1999 to about 255,030 in 2016. It is forecasted that 400,000 Indian students will leave the country to enroll in foreign universities by 2024. Inbound mobility used to be nominal but reached 30,423 in 2014. Inbound international students come from a limited number of countries: most come from developing countries, with only a small fraction coming from developed countries. According to AISHE (2019), 60 percent of the former category come from South Asian countries, with Nepal topping the list (11,521), followed by Afghanistan (4,378), Sudan (2,220), and Bhutan (1,999) (see Figure 10.2). A majority of the students come from Nepal, with most of them enrolled in undergraduate programs. Although there is a high number of females from Nepal, overall males have the majority among foreign students. Due to the growing imperative for higher education to internationalize, in order to enhance academic excellence, the mobility of students and academics is being taken up in a rigorous way by the institutions. Amongst all the universities in India enrolling international students, Manipal University has the largest number (2,742), followed by the University of Pune (Wadhwa, 2018). Based on these figures it can be understood that the huge population of India has an aspiration for international education, mainly due to the perception of better quality, higher standards and better placements as the outcome of an international degree. The intent of internationalization for the higher education institutions (HEIs) in India is about curriculum improvement, international quality standards, courses, programs, and research topics that deal with global issues, initiating a governance structure.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

141

FIGURE 10.2: Foreign student distribution by top ten countries in India. Source: AISHE (2019).

DISCUSSION: FROM INTERNATIONALIZATION FOR KNOWLEDGE SHARING TO ACADEMIC CAPITALISM The ancient Indian system of education focused on creating adept and capable citizens who were expected to have immense emotional and spiritual strength along with knowledge of society and culture. The objective of education for an individual was to attain liberation through knowledge. Compared with the role of universities that was being developed in the Western world, the Indian system of higher education laid more emphasis on the holistic development of the individual who was considered to be the pivot with the guru guiding him towards knowledge attainment. The Western world saw the role of universities and their lineage through the organization model, particularly after the book The Higher Learning in America by Thorstein Veblen in 1918. The book mentions the composition and structure of a university system that mirrored the bureaucratic model as espoused in the scientific management prevalent during those times (Marshall, 2016). With the emphasis on knowledge development through scientific research and discovery, the university’s role during the Second World War was taken to be of prime importance. The diffusion of this knowledge resulted in new product development and new businesses for the benefit of society. In the study by Marshall (2016), the second phase of university growth is considered from the 1980s to the present day. While the initial years of this phase were about philanthropic contributions in improving the infrastructure in the higher education sector, the later years saw the development of neo-liberalism, the philosophy of limiting the role of governments, and encouraging the principles of private enterprises in the economy. The Westernization brought about in India due to colonial rule saw a sea change in the aims and objectives of the education system. While the ancient system emphasized the importance of knowledge leading to the liberation of an individual, the neoliberal policies focused not on the social welfare of citizens as a whole, but rather on enabling individuals as economic actors whose contributions would help in developing the new economy in the global market (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). The impact of market-based thinking on academia became known as academic capitalism (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997), which was extended by Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) to the new knowledge economy that included new organizational networks, managerial capacity, focus on technological

142

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

innovation, and institutional adaptation to the new economy (Marshall, 2016). The academic capitalism places high performance expectations on the higher education institutions as well as on individuals who have to either perform or perish. While this helps in developing quality standards and a competitive spirit among the institutions and individuals, critics mention that the capitalistic culture makes the individual create his or her own parallel world filled with materialistic fulfillment. The influence of globalization has driven almost all the universities to aim to become world class and to progress highly on the international university rankings (Sidhu, 2009). Geerlings and Lundberg (2018) rightly point to the dilemma of academic institutions of disseminating Western discourses in the Asian cultural context. While proponents of global education consider that students need to be prepared to enter the global workforce (Ng, 2012) as no country can be untouched by the waves of globalization, some researchers argue that global knowledge may be at the expense of local expertise and diversity in education (Bourn, 2011). Critics also point to the growing cultural imperialism, neocolonialism (Rizvi, 2007), and dominance of the Anglo-American soft power in defining higher education. In their study, Geerlings and Lundberg (2018) mention that globalization reinforces the imaginaries of world class universities as a desirable development. This results in creation of eduscapes that call for international competition in terms of rankings, global status, international best practices, and the prestige associated with being a worldclass university. Hasan, Ramaprasad, and Singai (2014), in their study, show that a majority of the universities in the Indian state of Karnataka aim to be leading universities with a global focus and impact. In the same study the authors found that specialized local expertise or impact in local communities is not considered a valid option for many of these universities. One aspect of the capitalism view considers knowledge to be a commodity that has an exchange value and that can be sold on the open market. While the debate on the commodification of knowledge continues, some authors emphasize the nature of knowledge as a non-excludable public good (Kaupinnen, 2014), while others consider knowledge to be more symbolic in nature, something that serves as a foundation for philosophy (Gould, 2003) and its importance in understanding the history and culture of a country. Thus the universities are expressions of knowledge on both these aspects. Academic capitalism considers knowledge to be proprietary, and not for the public good— and with the universities passing this message to the stakeholders, the commercialization aspect is further enhanced. Knowledge in the new economy is considered to be the raw material, and therefore the focus of the universities in the knowledge economy is on generating intellectual capital, trademarking and licensing, and preparing students be ready as knowledge workers (Kauppinen, 2014; Mendoza and Berger, 2008; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Szelényi and Bresonis, 2014, in Marshall, 2016). In sharp contrast to the scientific management, the organization structure of the knowledge economy would include core specialists supported by a contingent of workers, who rely on technological processes to assemble and organize data, based on projects. The various aspects of internationalization effects as seen in India point to the dichotomy that Indian HEIs experience in their objectives towards knowledge attainment and delivery. The growth in enrollment and the number of universities, both public and private, point to the huge demand for education, albeit still wanting considering India’s burgeoning population. The Government of India, in its Twelfth Five Year Plan, considers “a move towards internationalization of higher education is imperative and there should

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

143

be creation of alliance, networks, clusters, and consortia of academic institutions amongst themselves and with the research institutions and industry should be facilitated in order to create a self-governing system” (RUSA Report, 2013–14; Ministry of Human Resource Development, India, 2014: 7). A number of scholars and philosophers have urged for the bringing of autonomy of knowledge to the forefront (Spinoza, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Leibniz, and Voltaire, in Pilkington, 2012). This paradigm shift has been echoed favorably and India is one of the countries aiming to secure a leading position in the knowledge economy with its rich past in knowledge development. A number of Asian universities consider enacting globalization on the lines of Westernization (Geerlings and Lundberg, 2018). The globalization discourses show aspects of neo-liberalism that have largely been associated with the Western world. Geerlings and Lundberg (2018) argue that the discourses on globalization dismiss alternative viewpoints, for example to consider globalization as a process influenced by students, intellectuals, or university policymakers. Whereas the Western knowledge perspective has usually been accepted as the norm in academic knowledge, the scholarships from other regions, especially from the Asian region, are often dismissed unless written in English. As a result, the global knowledge is largely constituted of best practices and research developed and defined according to Western notions. Several researchers point to the continuing subjugation of Asian countries by the knowledge and power effects of Anglo-American countries. Implementation of best practices from outside the country or rooting on its philosophy will bring to the fore several challenges to the higher education sector—similar to the observation by Wan (2011): coping with the financial stringency faced by several of the institutions, lack of articulation opportunities, low quality of education, and educated unemployment (Wang, 2003; Kember, 2010; Spiegler, 1998, in Wan, 2011).

CONCLUSION The internationalization of higher education is favorable for academic institutions, governments, and students for a number of significant reasons. The millennial generation has been found to be more globally oriented than earlier generations (BusinessWire, 2017). New research commissioned by Western Union shows that millennials across fifteen countries are united by a belief in globalization, want the freedom to experience the opportunities it brings, and have a desire to play a role in shaping the future using technology (BusinessWire, 2017). This orientation is particularly apt in India with a huge population base of young millennials. Although the Indian education system is deeply rooted in philosophical insights, the marketization (Mok, 2011) and globalization forces seem to have played a role in creating a “plurality of institutions” (Pilkington, 2012) to cater to different socio-economic needs. Even though it has a strong historical background, the Indian higher education system suffers from social and cultural pressures, namely enrollment ratios, recruitment processes and training, and quality standards. Numerous studies have been taken up regarding the sustainability and quality of professionals, especially academics, and research seems to be at the heart of the system in trying to adapt to the demands of internationalization trends in higher education. The government has come up with a new education policy to bring about reforms for improving the quality and effectiveness of institutions. As universities find their new role in the knowledge economy, the context of knowledge and the form of delivery have changed. Academic capitalism is evident in the academic

144

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

structures, management, and relationships with stakeholders by the universities. Although symbolic knowledge and knowledge for public good have been emphasized by a number of studies, the importance of knowledge as a tool for inclusiveness needs to be understood by the policymakers. The dichotomy between the rich philosophical heritage of India and the requirements of the globalization forces is something that needs to be resolved at a policy level by the governments and the institutions.

REFERENCES Ahmed, S., and Iqbal, B.A. (2013). Financing of higher education in India: Then and now. Productivity, 53(4): 390–401. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =trueanddb=bthandAN=90457880andsite=ehost-live Ahmed, S., and Iqbal, B.A. (2013). Financing of higher education in India: Then and now. Productivity, 53(4): 390–401. AISHE (2019). Government of India. All India Survey on Higher Education. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi, 2019, http:// aishe.nic.in/ aishe/home Altbach, P.G. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1): 3–25. Altbach, P.G. (2013). Advancing the national and global knowledge economy: The role of research universities in developing countries. Studies in Higher Education, 38(3): 316–330. American Council on Education (ACE) (2009). Sizing up the competition: The future of international postsecondary student enrolment in the United States. Available from www. acenet.edu Barnett, R. (2016). Policy, what policy? In John, P. and Fanghanel, J. (eds), Dimensions of Marketisation in Higher Education. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 223–232. Bauwens, L., Mion, G., and Thisse, J-F. (2007). The resistible decline of European science. CORE Discussion Papers, 92. Retrieved from http://www.ecore.be/DPs/dp_1197470179. pdf Bourn, D. (2011). From internationalization to global perspectives. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(5): 559–571. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.598447 Brooks, R., and Johanna, L.W. (2011). Student Mobilities, Migration and the Internationalization of Higher Education. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. BusinessWire (2017). Millenials stand for globalisation and want to shape the future. November 15, 2017. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171115005572/en/MillennialsStand-Globalism-Shape-Future Census (2011). Government of India, https://censusindia.gov.in/2011-common/censusdata2011. html Chen, S.-Y. (2012). Contributing knowledge and knowledge workers: The role of Chinese universities in the knowledge economy. London Review of Education, 10(1): 101–112. Chen, L., and Huang, D. (2013). Internationalization of Chinese higher education. Higher Education Studies, 3(1): 92–105. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/13485 89447?accountid=62587 Freeman, I., and Thomas, M. (2005). Consumerism in education: A comparison between Canada and the United Kingdom. The International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2): 156–177.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

145

Geerlings L.R.C. and Lundberg, A. (2018). Global discourses and power/knowledge: Theoretical reflections on futures of higher education during the rise of Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(2): 229–240, doi: 10.1080/02188791.2018.1460259 Gopinathan, S., and Lee, M. (2011). Challenging and co-opting globalization: Singapore’s strategies in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(3): 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.565001 Gould, T. (2003). Hybrid Classes: Maximizing Institutional Resources and Student Learning. Proceedings of the 2003 ASCUE Conference, www.ascue.org Guruz, K. (2008). Higher Education and International Student Mobility in The Global Knowledge Economy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hasan, T., Ramaprasad, A., and Singai, C. (2014). Rethinking higher education research: Ontology mapping of higher education systems. Research and Development in Higher Education: Higher Education in a Globalized World, 37: 161–171. Hawawini, G. (2011). The internationalization of higher education institutions: A critical review and a radical proposal. INSEAD Working Papers Collection, 112: 1–45. Hébert, Y., and Abdi, A.A. (2013). Critical Perspectives on International Education, vol. 15. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Hristova, S., Petrovska, I., and Dimitrova, M. (2013). Internationalization in higher education: Trends and opportunities. Analele Universitatii “Eftimie Murgu” Resita. Fascicola II. Studii Economice, 90–100. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truean ddb=bthandAN=93679227andsite=ehost-live Huang, F. (2015). Building the world-class research universities: A case study of China. Higher Education, 70(2): 203–215. Huber, E., Gunderson, J., and Stephens, J.D. (2019). Private education and inequality in the knowledge economy. Policy and Society, doi: 0.1080/14494035.2019.1636603 Hudzik, J.K. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization: From Concept to Action. Washington, DC : NAFSA, Association of International Educators. Kahn P.E, and Misiaszek, L.I (2019). Educational mobilities and internationalised higher education: Critical perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(5): 587–598, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1625120 Kanungo, S. (2015). Growth of higher education in India—Problems and solutions. Global Management Review, 9(3): 53–60. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d irect=trueanddb=bthandAN=111523931andsite=ehost-live Kauppinen, I. (2014). Different meanings of “knowledge as commodity” in the context of higher education. Critical Sociology, 40(3): 393–409. doi:10.1177/0896920512471218 Kember, D. (2010). Opening up the road to nowhere: Problems with the path to mass higher education in Hong Kong. Higher Education, 56: 167–179. Kennedy, A.B. (2016). Slouching tiger, roaring dragon: Comparing India and China as late innovators. Review of International Political Economy, 23(1): 65–92. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, rationales and approaches. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Larsen, Marianne A. (2016). Internationalization of Higher Education: An Analysis through Spatial, Network, and Mobilities Theories. New York: Springer. Makkar, U., Gabriel, E.O., and Tripathi, S.K. (2008). Value chain for higher education sectorcase studies of India and Tanzania. Journal of Services Research, 81: 83–200. Marshall, G.S. (2016). The university in the knowledge economy: Academic capitalism and its implications for doctoral students in public administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 38(4): 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2016.1239398

146

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Mendoza, P., and Berger, J.B. (2008). Academic capitalism and academic culture: A case study. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(23): 1–24. doi:10.14507/epaa.v16n23.2008 Ministry of Human Resource Development, India (2014). RUSA report, 2013–14. https:// mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/RUSA_final090913.pdf Mok, K.H. (2011). The quest for regional hub of education: Growing heterarchies, organizational hybridization, and new governance in Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Education Policy, 26(1): 61–81. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2010.498900 Mundy, K. (2005). Globalization and educational change: New policy worlds. In Bascia, N., Cumming, A. Datnow, A., and Leithwood, K. (eds), International Handbook of Educational Policy. New York: Springer. Ng, S.W. (2012). Rethinking the mission of internationalization of higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 42(3): 439–459. doi:10.1080/03057925.2011.652815 Ochilov, A. (2014). Is higher education a driving force of economic growth in Uzbekistan? Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 14(4): 160–174. https://doi. org/10.15208/pieb.2014.19 OECD (2004). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD . P˘a unic˘a , M., Matac, M. L., Motofei, C., and Manole, A. (2011). The role of higher education in a dynamic knowledge-driven economy. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 6(1): 421–426. Retrieved from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=trueanddb= bthandAN=97464330andsite=ehost-live Pilkington, M. (2012). The French evolution: France and the Europeanisation of higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1): 39–50. https://doi.or g/10.1080/1360080X.2012.642330 QS World University Rankings (2020). Top 10 universities 2020. https://www.topuniversities. com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2020 Rizvi, F. (2007). Postcolonialism and globalization in education. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 7(3): 256–263. doi: 10.1177/1532708607303606 Schulte, B. (2019). Innovation and control: Universities, the knowledge economy and the authoritarian state in China. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 5(1): 30–42, doi: 10.1080/20020317.2018.1535732 Sidhu, R. (2009). Running to stay still in the knowledge economy. Journal of Education Policy, 24(3): 237–253. doi: 10.1080/02680930802669250 Singh, M. (2013). Educational practice in India and its foundations in Indian heritage: A synthesis of the East and West? Comparative Education, 49(1): 88–106, doi: 10.1080/03050068.2012.740222 Slaughter, S., and Leslie, L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., and Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD : The Johns Hopkins University Press. Stukalina, Y. (2008). How to prepare students for productive and satisfying careers in the knowledge-based economy: Creating a more efficient educational environment. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 14(2): 197–207, https://doi. org/10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.197-207 Szelényi, K., and Bresonis, K. (2014). The public good and academic capitalism: Science and engineering doctoral students and faculty on the boundary of knowledge regimes. Journal of Higher Education, 85(1): 126–153. doi:10.1353/jhe.2014.0004

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

147

Teferra, D. (2016). African flagship universities: Their neglected contributions. Higher Education, 72(1): 79–99. Tilak, J.B.G. (2008). Transition from higher education as a public good to higher education as a private good: The saga of Indian experience. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1(2): 220–234, doi: 10.1080/17516230802094593 Times Higher Education (2020). World University Rankings. https://www.timeshighereducation. com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/ sort_order/asc/cols/stats Ullberg, E. (2015). New Perspectives on Internationalization and Competitiveness: Integrating Economics, Innovation and Higher Education. Cham: Springer. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2008, November). Final overview by the Rapporteur General. Final proceedings, research summaries and poster presentations, Merle Jacob. Global research seminar: Sharing research agendas on knowledge systems. Paris. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0018/001818/181836e.pdf Vujicˇic´, M., and Ristic´, L. (2015). Higher educational system of the republic of Serbia in support of sustainable development: Challenges of the EU integration. Megatrend Review, 12(1): 139–156. https://doi.org/10.5937/MegRev1501139V Wadhwa, R. (2018). Differential entry of first and non-first-generation students in higher education with reference to India. Higher Education for the Future, 5(2): 142–161. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2347631118767283 Wan, C. (2011). Reforming higher education in Hong Kong towards post-massification: The first decade and challenges ahead. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(2): 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.550034 Wang, R.J. (2003). From elitism to mass higher education in Taiwan: The problems faced. Higher Education, 46: 261–287.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Conclusion The Shift to the East, and the Changing Face of Internationalization ANTHONY R. WELCH

Internationalization of higher education in East and South East Asia can be seen as part of the wider global shift to the East. No longer simply a source of bright students for the global North, several systems already list major achievements, together with ambitious further plans and targets to extend internationalization. These include substantial inward student flows, incentives to attract internationally based staff (numbers of whom are from their own knowledge diaspora), heightened international research collaboration, and the creation of “world class” universities that are increasingly attractive to both scholars and international students. This chapter draws on several cases from East and Southeast Asia, including developing relations with Australia, the only major English language system in the South Pacific, with a history of close links to the countries of ASEAN, and to China.

DECONSTRUCTING MOBILITY MYTHS The rise of the East, however, should not be seen as something new, but rather a renaissance—a reversion to a world order of some centuries ago, in which both China and India, for example, were not merely major economies in their own right, but featured great centers of learning that attracted scholars and students from far and wide (Welch, 2019). While examples from India and the Arab world could be cited, Confucianism is perhaps the best example. Originating a century or so earlier than the Platonic academy, the sophisticated Confucian form of higher learning came to life during the Spring and Autumn period, although its formalization occurred more than a millennium later, in the Tang and Song dynasties, with a core curriculum based on the Four Books and Five Classics. Its regional importance cannot be overestimated, with a strong and enduring influence in Japan (into which, most often termed Jugaku, or Juky¯o, it was introduced in the sixth century), Korea, and Viet Nam. In the latter, like China, it formally persisted until the earliest years of the twentieth century.1 Echoes of China’s famed ancient Shuyuan,

On the persistent influence of the Confucian model in China and the region, see, inter alia, Ruth Hayhoe, China’s Universities 1895–1995. A Century of Cultural Conflict (New York, Garland, 1996), Tucker, J. (2018) ‘Japanese Confucian Philosophy’ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/

1

148

CONCLUSION

149

scholarly centers (mostly Confucian) are still to be seen in Ha Noi’s delightful V˘an Miê´u (Temple of Learning), founded in 1070, and in Korea where the shu¯yuàn (Korean Seowon 서원) was the most common educational institution during the mid-to-late Joseon dynasty. While of lesser regional influence, and much less well known, the development of Angkor Wat, under under the reign of King Jayavarman VII (1181–1218 CE) should also be mentioned. A key regional center of higher learning, at a time when the Khmer empire was a major force in Southeast Asia, its curriculum included literacy in both Khmer and Sanskrit, Buddhist precepts, mathematics, as well as manual arts such as engineering and construction principles and techniques. “Angkor was first and foremost a centre of learning, with numerous monasteries, that had libraries as well as rooms for teaching and accommodation for students” (Hayhoe, 2019: 177, see also Giteau, 1976, Chhem, 1997). Such examples explode the myths, both that the origins of internationalization are uniquely Western, and that internationalization is a quintessentially modern phenomenon. (Welch, 2008). Analysis of contemporary developments in East and Southeast Asian higher education only serves to reinforce this point. Just as the swift economic development of East Asia (as also parts of Southeast Asia) has startled the world, so too, the rise of higher education in the region has been dramatic, not merely in quantitative terms. Of the leading 500 research universities worldwide listed in the well-regarded Shanghai Jiaotong’s Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), fifty-eight are now Chinese (four in the top 100), while Singapore has two in the top 100, and Malaysia one listed in the top 400 (ARWU, 2019a).

MIXED EFFECTS Such impressive developments are changing the face of higher education internationalization. While traditional host countries of international students such as the United States, the UK, and Australia continue to be well represented, the foregoing chapters reveal that major higher education hubs in East and Southeast Asia are now attracting international students in growing numbers. China’s target of having 500,000 international students by 2020, articulated as part of its Medium and Long Term Education Plan, 2010, was reached before the target date (MoE, 2010; MoE, 2019a, b), while around 10 percent (131,154) of Malaysia’s 1.34 million higher education students are now international (Wan and Abdullah, 2019) and the tiny state of Singapore (total population less than 6 million in 2010) attracted 75,000 international students to its few universities in 2015 (Key Facts n.d.; Basilotte, 2016). Zhejiang University, one of China’s leading higher education institutions (HEIs), enrolled more than 7,000 international students alone in 2018, the majority of whom were in degree programs (largely in STEM disciplines) (Zhejiang University, 2018). At the same time, however, East and South East Asia both continue to suffer from brain drain. While China, for example, has long suffered from a haemorrhaging of top talent from Physics and Chemistry departments of its leading universities, this pattern has now changed in a number of ways. First, the disciplinary mix now includes the large cohort of IT specialists that China has been deliberately cultivating since around 2012. The decade from 2009 saw the number of China’s IT specialists grow almost ten-fold: by 2018, they japanese-confucian/, and Anthony Welch, “The Internationalization of Vietnamese Higher Education” in Grant Harman, Martin Hayden, and Pham Van Nghi (eds), Reforming Vietnamese Higher Education (London, Springer, 2010).

150

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

formed close to 25 percent of the world’s total. But a study of acceptances at a prestigious international IT conference (NeurIPS) over the same period revealed that something like three quarters of such Chinese specialists were found to be working outside China, mostly in the United States (Macro Polo, 2019). Second, however, this may well change, both as an outcome of the US–China trade war (now increasingly recognized as a technology war), and as a result of China’s more sophisticated diaspora strategy, which now encourages its overseas talent who remain abroad to collaborate with scientists at home (Welch and Zhang, 2008; Yang and Welch, 2010; Welch and Hao, 2013). Related measures include the proliferation of China’s “Foreign Talent” schemes, which are designed to lure academic talent—many of them highly qualified Chinese—from around the world to work with or in leading departments of Chinese universities (Welch and Cai, 2011). Part of China’s 2017 national artificial intelligence strategy of 2017, for example, involved luring top scientists back home, and there is evidence that the wider strategy of offering competitive salaries and well-equipped laboratories is meeting with success (Macro Polo, 2019; SCMP 2018a, b).2 Whereas in the past as many as 95 percent of Chinese students who had gained an advanced degree abroad chose to stay there, by the end of 2017, 83 percent had chosen to return. As a leading scientist at China’s top-ranked Tsinghua University pithily remarked in late 2018, “The problem of the brain drain no longer exists. One important reason is the salary. Another reason is Trump” (SCMP, 2018a). Among the nations of East and Southeast Asia, however, China is something of an exception. By contrast, smaller, less developed nations, in particular, lack both the scientific capacity to provide leading research facilities, and the economic size and heft to offer internationally competitive salary packages. Nonetheless, as Han and Shen argue (Chapter 5, this volume), the International Institute of Management Development’s (IMD) Brain Drain Index3 reveals that China’s brain drain remains worse than at least some of its Asian counterparts, such as Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Japan.

REGIONALISM IN EAST AND SOUTHEAST ASIA Regionalism forms a growing element within the wider context of internationalization of higher education, including throughout the dynamic and diverse East and Southeast Asian regions (Jayasuriya and Robertson, 2010; Welch, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2018). Of the international student cohorts indicated above, intra-Asian regionalism is important in all the examples cited. It is notable for example, that 59.95 percent of China’s international enrollments are from Asia, with a further 1.27 percent from Oceania (MoE, 2019b). For Malaysia, seven of its top ten source countries are from Asia, with Indonesia alone accounting for 18,816 (Azman and Wan, Chapter 9, this volume).4 According to Seoul’s National Institute for International Education, the 71,000 mainland Chinese students in South Korea form 44.4 percent of the overall international student population (SCMP, 2019). And in Japan, as Table 11.1 reveals, of the total of 298,980 international students registered in 2018, the five largest source countries were, with one exception, all either East or Southeast Asian. The priority accorded STEM disciplines, among other things, has meant less success in luring social scientists. The International Institute of Management Development’s measure of brain drain, by country. 4 This includes nations from outside the region. For some of the complexities of definitions of Asia, and its subregions, see Welch (2019). 2 3

CONCLUSION

151

TABLE 11.1 Japan, origin of international students Country China Vietnam Nepal Republic of Korea Taiwan

No. and % of international students 114,950 (34.4) 72,354 (24.2) 24,331 (8.1) 17,012 (5.7) 9,524 (3.2)

Source: JASSO (2018). Note: International student totals include enrollments in Colleges of Technology, Professional Training colleges, University Preparatory courses, and Language Institutes.

Offering an alternative form of internationalization, branch campuses remain a significant feature of internationalization in parts of East and Southeast Asia. Most such ventures are outposts of English-speaking higher education systems, although China’s well-regarded Xiamen University established the country’s first major overseas campus in Malaysia, in 2015 (XMUM n.d.; Welch and Postiglione, 2020). While it is true that China is host to a number of university branch campuses, such as Nottingham Ningbo (established in 2004) Xian Jiaotong Liverpool (2006), New York University Shanghai (2012), and Duke Kunshan (2013), these generally fall under the rubric of Sino–foreign cooperation universities, with specific conditions.5 Malaysia too, plays host to ten foreign branch campuses, by such universities as Monash, Curtin, and Swinburne, from Australia, and Nottingham, Heriott-Watt, Newcastle, Reading, and Southampton, from the UK (Study Malaysia, 2018; Wan and Abdullah, 2019, Times Higher Education, 2019). But other international higher education initiatives in both East and Southeast Asia are of growing importance. These include regional cooperation schemes among the countries of East Asia, as well as those focused on South East Asia; specifically, member nations of ASEAN. Of growing importance, too, are burgeoning links between China and neighboring countries, notably from ASEAN, as well as sub-regional initiatives, such as the Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV) International Development Cooperation in Higher Education Program, based on nations of the Mekong (Azman and Wan, Chapter 9, this volume; Wan and Sirat, 2018). Lastly, regional relations with Australia, the only substantial English language higher education system in the vicinity, are also of increasing significance.

East Asia Networks Modeled somewhat on the much larger and better-known ERASMUS European academic mobility program, Campus Asia (Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students in Asia) is a regional (East Asian) student exchange, and dual degree, program, between China, Japan, and Korea (GRIPS, n.d.; SNU, n.d.; University World News, 2013). Launched in 2012 as a top-down initiative comprising credit exchange, dual According to Han and Shen (Chapter 5, this volume), Yanbian University of Science and Technology in 1992 was the first example of this form of Sino–foreign cooperation, albeit of a secondary/subordinate (erji) college. Numbers of such Sino–foreign HEIs have the status of legal persons, or corporate bodies (duli faren), including provisions that the majority of the governing board, for example, must be Chinese. The MoE cut 234 such programs in 2018, in the interests of quality control (ICEF Monitor, 2018).

5

152

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

degrees, and the development of joint degree programs, it was based on three principles: cultivation of a generation of Asian leaders; increased exchange of students; and government leadership. The rise of Asia, the need to develop the next generation of leaders in the region, as well as the promotion of mutual understanding among these three leading East Asian nations were background rationales for the development of the scheme, with an associated aspiration to create an Asian Higher Education Area (AHEA; Chun, 2016; Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010). Between 100 and 150 participating students annually spend a year at a partner university in the region, ultimately submitting a master’s thesis. Some results point to the development of more positive attitudes towards the host country on the part of participating students, and a rise in feelings of East Asian identity (Chun, 2016). Joint projects involving HEIs from all three countries include water resources, developing leading infrastructure Engineers, and the development of an East Asian common law community (SKKU, n.d.).

ASEAN Networks ASEAN forms the locus of another regional internationalization initiative. As its name suggests, the ASEAN University Network (AUN), founded in 1995, comprises a consortium of thirty prominent universities across the ten-member, highly diverse, and dynamic ASEAN region (AUN, n.d. a, b; Welch, 2011: 79–80). The original aims of building greater harmony and an ASEAN identity in the region were reflected in the founding aims of AUN: ●

●

●

●

To develop SE Asian studies interdisciplinary academic programmes, and availability of related academic degrees in at least one major university in each member state To undertake cooperative, regional ASEAN MA and PhD programmes, each involving courses offered by HEIs in at least two member states To undertake joint ASEAN regional research projects, by scientists/scholars from at least two member states, and To institute ASEAN Visiting Professors programs, enabling academics from one member state to lecture for a given period at an HEI of another member state (AUN, n.d., a).

A second program is based on boosting student mobility among ASEAN systems. AIMS (ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS) started as a pilot project in 2009, by the Governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand (M-I-T) and the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization-Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO RIHED). The program ran from 2010 to 2014, and 1,130 students from 23 universities in the region participated in it (Chun, 2016).

ASEAN+3 Within years of its establishment, and in line with the growing trend towards extending regional (or perhaps trans-regional) academic collaboration, 2001 saw the inauguration of the ASEAN+3 network that embraced numerous HEIs from the three East Asian states of China, Japan, and Korea. Of China’s five member HEIs, most were drawn from China’s southern borderlands, which already had well-established relations with neighboring ASEAN HEIs (AUN, n.d., b; Yang, 2012; Wen 2016, Welch, 2011, 2018).

CONCLUSION

153

The six member HEIs from Korea and ten from Japan were drawn from across the country, including leading public and private universities (AUN, n.d., b). HEIs from ASEAN now total thirty, from all ten ASEAN member states. Activities included the ASEAN-China Rectors conference, Roundtable, Joint Research and Training Grants focused on mutual research priorities such as Marine Science and ecology, as well as ASEAN-China Distinguished Professors and Lecturers Exchange Programme.

China–ASEAN Regionalism The AUN+3 example above fits within a wider pattern of growing links between East and South East Asia, particularly in higher education. China–ASEAN links in higher education provide a potent example, which, at a time of growing great power rivalry, is arguably of even greater importance in maintaining sound cultural relations in the region. The grounds for denser regional relations in higher education are numerous. For almost all the countries of ASEAN, China is their largest trading partner. All ten member states have a Chinese ethnic minority, of vastly varying proportions,6 but which, in each case, exercises a disproportionately greater role in the national economy than their share of the population. In addition, China’s southern borderland regions of Yunnan, Guizhou, and Guanxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, fringe southeast Asia, with which each has longstanding relations,7 and in some cases ethnic ties. In partial recognition of Southeast Asia’s growing importance, the three borderlands, formerly seen as luo hou, 㩭ਾ (backward) have now been re-categorized as qiaotoubao, ẕཤ๑ (bridgeheads) into the ASEAN region. These elements all form part of what has been dubbed the six pillars of China–ASEAN relations in higher education: economics, knowledge mobility, historical background, Chinese regional diaspora, regional perceptions of Chinese minorities, territorial disputes (Welch, 2018). As its leaders have often acknowledged, ASEAN’s development is thus increasingly closely tied to China’s rise. As erstwhile Indonesian President Yudhoyono acknowledged, “ASEAN has a lot riding on the success of China’s peaceful development. There is no question that our future, our prosperity, will be strongly linked to China” (Yudhoyono, cited in Welch, 2014). Higher education initiatives include the ASEAN–China Academic Cooperation and Exchange Programme, proposed after meetings between AUN and Madame Chen Zhili, then Minister of Education of the People’s of Republic of China (PRC) in October 1999 and April 2000. More recent networks include examples in science and technology, such as the China–ASEAN Scholar program (SEAMEO RIHED, n.d.), part of the ASEAN– China Network for Cooperation and Exchanges among Engineering and Technology Universities (ACNET-EngTech), administered by Tianjin University (SEAMEO RIHED, n.d.), and also in the social sciences, such as Fudan’s Network of ASEAN–China Academic Institutes (NACAI), focused on “encouraging joint research on the issues related to ASEAN-China relations” (Fudan, n.d.).

Australia and Regional Knowledge Networks With a total population of only around 25 million, Australia’s higher education enrollments are, at 1.5 million, not much larger than that of its near neighbor, Malaysia. And, by any From a minuscule 1.5 percent in Viet Nam, to Singapore’s 60 percent. Chinese rule over Tonkin, for example (part of current Viet Nam) dates back to the period at the end of the Warring States period (c. 220 BCE), when China was first unified, under Emperor Qin Shi Huang.

6 7

154

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

measure, its uneasy status as “Asian” is, at best, that of a “significant other” (Walker, 2019; Teo, 2019). At the same time, however, two elements distinguish it with respect to internationalization. As the only major English language higher education system in the region, with long-established relations with both the nations of Southeast Asia, as well as China, it has proved an enduring attraction to students (and settlers—some 40 percent of migrants are now from Asia) from the region. Indeed, at least 25 percent of overall higher education enrollments are international, among the highest ratio worldwide. Of the 1.5 million referred to above, 398,563 were international students in 2018 (APH, 2019). At 38.3 percent, China formed by far the largest cohort, but all of the top ten source countries were from Asia (APH, 2019). The fact that, of Australia’s 40 universities, 7 are in the top 100 worldwide, constitutes a further attraction to prospective international students, and to academic staff, numbers of whom first take their PhD in Australia, and then move into academic careers. The largest example consists of mainland Chinese, now present in significant numbers at all Australian universities (ARWU, 2019b). But the—highly unequal—student flows between Australia and the region, and the substantial international alumni thereby generated, are by no means the whole story (Welch, 2014). Evolving and richer relations between Australia and the region include growing economic ties (ASEAN is now Australia’s second largest trading partner, after China), major foreign policy initiatives, and, in particular, closer and denser forms of academic collaboration (Australian Government, 2013; APH, 2013; Welch, 2014). The development of leading universities in countries such as China, and Singapore, and rising research output by both China and several ASEAN systems has opened further opportunities for regional research collaboration (The Conversation, 2017), something that is clearly being taken advantage of, as Table 11.2 reveals. As a review of regional research relations pointed out: For ASEAN, too, China is an important knowledge partner. China is Malaysia’s largest international collaborator, while for the Philippines, China is the third-largest (UNESCO, 2010: 443). Interestingly, for both Indonesia and Singapore, Australia is their third-largest international collaborator. Clearly, there is more potential here to develop these existing collaborations into a more fully-fledged regional knowledge network. —Welch, 2014: 159

TABLE 11.2 Australia’s collaborative publications and citations 2000–2011, by country Country Australia with China with Indonesia with Malaysia with Philippines with Thailand with Viet Nam Source: Thomson, InCites 2012.

Total publications (2000–2011)

Total citations (2000–2011)

Citations per publication

512,042 18,465 1,356 1,560 670 2,387 684

5,801,020 256,584 14,287 16,399 12,613 36,354 8,249

11.4 13.9 10.5 10.5 18.8 15.2 12.1

CONCLUSION

155

CONCLUSION: EAST–WEST SYNTHESIS? Clearly, the shift to the East is an event of world consequence, including in higher education. In what is now clearly a multi-polar global knowledge system, both East and Southeast Asian systems have made giant strides and, as a result, are now much more prominent, albeit very differentially. This is proving a magnet for both international students, and staff, and is providing a better base for regional research collaboration. At the same time, virtually all systems within the region still struggle with a longstanding dilemma. The desire to retain the rich patrimony offered by indigenous knowledge forms and pedagogies conflicts with the aim to draw on the best from the West. Most clearly seen in Meiji Japan’s attempt, from 1868, to systematically incorporate the most advanced forms of Western knowledge in the interests of reform and modernization, the dilemma continues to haunt virtually all systems of East and Southeast Asia. Epitomized in the Japanese phrase wakon yosai (઼兲⌻᡽) or “Japanese spirit, Western Learning,” it was a later form of the wakon-kansai (઼兲╒᡽) “Japanese spirit, Chinese learning” tradition, alluded to earlier (Ota, 2012: 148). In China, much the same dilemma is summarized in the idiom zhongxue wei ti, xi xue wei yong (ѝᆖѪփˈ㾯ᆖѪ⭘), or “Chinese Learning as Substance, Western Learning for practical use.” Coined by Zhang Zhidong ᕐѻ⍎ (1837–1909), as part of the SelfStrengthening movement (Yangwu yundong ⌻࣑䘀ࣘ) in the dying days of the sclerotic Qing dynasty, the idea was supported by other major figures such as Liang Qichao ằஏ䎵 (1873–1929), but its subsequent suppression by Dowager empress Cixi led to both Liang’s and his mentor Yang, Kouwei’s ᓧᴹѪ (1858–1927) flight to exile in Japan. The debate continues to resonate strongly among Chinese intellectuals to this day. Decades ago, the renowned scholar of international higher education Philip Altbach pointed out that, while great strides had been made, no Asian system had yet solved the problem of developing an effective synthesis that retained a core of indigenous knowledge values, while incorporating or adapting ideas and forms from the West. There was, he argued, “no Asian academic model emerging” (Altbach, 1989: 27, see also Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989: 12) A more recent summary also pointed to the enduring nature of the dilemma, albeit forcefully illustrating the progress achieved by Asian higher education systems (largely in East and Southeast Asia) (Welch, 2019). Internationalization offers one potential means to begin to resolve the dilemma, but current pressures for greater performativity, particularly intense in Asia, as part of efforts to create “world class” institutions and systems, militate against prospects for East and West meeting on equal terms. This is largely because performance is still overwhelmingly measured according to Western metrics, especially publication in major English language journals. The fact that, as Azman and Wan (Chapter 9), and Han and Shen (Chapter 5) point out in this volume, English remains the dominant platform for internationalization, makes such a resolution harder to achieve. As Ota ruefully concludes, “it does not seem to be possible to adopt foreign culture selectively, and still maintain the local spirit intact” (Ota, 2012: 155).

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) (2019a). China. http://www.shanghairanking. com/World-University-Rankings-2019/China.html (accessed January 3, 2020). Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) (2019b). Australia. http://www.shanghairanking. com/World-University-Rankings-2019/Australia.html (accessed January 5, 2020).

156

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Altbach, P. (1989). Twisted Roots: The Western impact on Asian Education. Higher Education, 18(1): 9–29. Altbach, P.G., and Selvaratnam, V. (eds.) (1989). From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ASEAN Universities Network (AUN) (n.d., a). History and background. http://www.aunsec. org/ourhistory.php (accessed December 20, 2019). ASEAN Universities Network (AUN) (n.d., b). ASEAN+3 UNet Member Universities. http:// www.aunsec.org/membership.php (accessed December 20, 2019). Australia Parliament House (APH) (2013). ASEAN and regional cooperation: Recent developments and Australia’s interests. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/ASEAN (accessed December 20, 2019). Australia Parliament House (APH) (2019). Overseas students in Australian higher education: A quick guide. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/ Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1819/Quick_Guides/OverseasStudents (accessed December 12, 2019). Australian Government (2013). Australia in the Asian century. https://www.defence.gov.au/ whitepaper/2013/docs/australia_in_the_asian_century_white_paper.pdf (accessed December 20, 2019). Basilotte, L. et al. (2016). Singapore’s higher education cluster. http://www.isc.hbs.edu/ resources/courses/moc-course-at-harvard/Documents/pdf/student-projects/Singapore%20 Higher%20Education%202016.pdf (accessed December 12, 2019). Chhem, R. (1997). University and Human Capital in ASEAN Perspectives: The Case of Cambodia. Unpublished PhD, Université de Montréal. Chun, J-h. (2016). Can CAMPUS Asia program be a next ERASMUS? The possibilities and challenges of the CAMPUS Asia program. Asia Europe Journal, 14(3): 279–296. Chronicle of Higher Education (2010). “Campus Asia” project aims to harmonize higher education in the region. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Campus-Asia-Project-Will/65177 (accessed December 20, 2019). Conversation [The] (2017). Indonesia races against its ASEAN neighbours, but science needs more collaboration. http://theconversation.com/indonesia-races-against-its-asean-neighboursbut-science-needs-more-collaboration-83840 (accessed January 3, 2020). Fudan University (n.d.). Network of ASEAN–China Academic Institutes (NACAI). http://www. iis.fudan.edu.cn/en/platform_of_academic_exchanges/list.htm (accessed December 12, 2019). Giteau, M. (1976). The Civilization of Angkor. New York: Rizzoli. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s Universities 1895–1995. A Century of Cultural Conflict. New York: Garland. Hayhoe, R. (2019). The gift of Indian higher learning traditions to the global research university. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(2): 177–189. ICEF Monitor (2018). China announces the closure of more than 200 TNE programmes. https://monitor.icef.com/2018/07/china-announces-closure-200-tne-programmes/ (accessed December 22, 2019). Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) (2018). Result of an annual survey of international students in Japan 2018. https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_ student_e/2018/index.html (accessed December 21, 2019). Jayasuriya, K., and Robertson, S. (2010). Regulatory regionalism and the governance of higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(1): 1–6.

CONCLUSION

157

Key Facts for International Students in Singapore (n.d.). https://www.expat.com/en/guide/asia/ singapore/15831-key-facts-for-international-students-in-singapore.html (accessed December 22, 2019). Macro Polo (2019). China’s AI talent base is growing, and then leaving. https://macropolo.org/ chinas-ai-talent-base-is-growing-and-then-leaving/ (accessed January 2, 2020). Ministry of Education [Beijing] (2010). Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development. https://internationaleducation.gov.au/News/ newsarchive/2010/Documents/China_Education_Reform_pdf.pdf (accessed December 20, 2019). Ministry of Education. (2019a). Statistics of incoming foreign students (in Chinese). http:// www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/201904/t20190412_377692.html?from=timeli neandisappinstalled=0 (accessed December 20, 2019). Ministry of Education. (2019b). Statistical Report on international students in China for 2018 http://en.moe.gov.cn/documents/reports/201904/t20190418_378692.html (accessed December 20, 2019). National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) (n.d.). What is Campus Asia? http:// www.grips.ac.jp/campusasia/en/about/ (accessed December 20, 2019). Ota, N. (2012). Wakon-Yosai ઼兲⌻᡽ and globalization. In Holroyd C., and Coates, K. (eds), Japan in the Age of Globalization. London: Routledge, pp. 148–157. SEAMEO RIHED (n.d.). China–ASEAN Scholar Program. https://rIHEd.seameo.org/ china-asean-scholar-program/ (accessed January 2, 2020). Seoul National University (SNU) (n.d.). Campus Asia Program. https://gsis.snu.ac.kr/campus_ asia_program (accessed December 22, 2019). South China Morning Post (SCMP) (2018a). China’s brain drain ending thanks to salaries and Trump. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2163001/chinas-brain-drain-usending-thanks-higher-salaries-and-donald (accessed January 3, 2020). South China Morning Post [SCMP] (2018b). Why China’s overseas students find things aren’t always better back home. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2162229/ why-chinas-overseas-students-find-things-arent-always-better-back (accessed January 2, 2020). South China Morning Post (SCMP) (2019). In South Korea, Chinese and Korean students are clashing over Hong Kong protests. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/ article/3038795/south-korea-chinese-and-korean-students-are-clashing-over-hong (accessed December 20, 2019). Study Malaysia (2018). Study info and guide. Foreign university branch campus. https://www. studymalaysia.com/education/top-stories/foreign-university-branch-campus-your-route-togetting-a-foreign-degree-right-here-in-malaysia (accessed December 20, 2019). SungKyunKwan University (SKKU) (n.d.). Campus Asia. https://www.skku.edu/eng/ International/InternationalPrograms/CampusAsia.do (accessed December 20, 2019). Teo, S. (2019). Can Australia be one of us? The view from Asia. Australian Foreign Affairs, 5: 77–93. Thomson, Incites 2012. http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/incites/ (accessed December 22, 2019). Times Higher Education (2019). Reading “ignored warning signals” over Malaysia Branch Campus. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/reading-ignored-warning-signalsover-malaysia-branch-campus Tucker, J. (2018). “Japanese Confucian Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-confucian/ (accessed December 21, 2019).

158

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

UNESCO (2010). Science Report 2010. Paris: UNESCO. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/ files/documents/unesco-science-report-2010-the-current-status-of-science-around-the-worlden.pdf (accessed December 20, 2019).. University World News (2013). Can CAMPUS Asia bring a closer East Asia? https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20131125231328776 (accessed December 20, 2019). Walker, D. (2019). “Significant Other”: Anxieties about Australia’s Asian Future. Australian Foreign Affairs, 5: 15–28. Wan, C-d., and Abdullah, D. (2019). Internationalization of Malaysian Higher Education. Policies and Practices for Future Development. UNESCO Forum on Internationalization of Higher Education, Bangkok, November. Wan, C-d., and Sirat, M. (2018). Internationalization of the Malaysian higher education system through the prism of south-south cooperation. International Journal of African Higher Education, 4(2): 79–90. Welch, A. (2008). Myths and modes of mobility. The changing face of academic mobility in the global era. In Byram, M., and Dervin, F. (eds), Students, Staff and Academic Mobility in Higher Education. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 292–311. Welch, A. (2010). The internationalization of Vietnamese higher education. In Harman, G., Hayden, M., and Van Nghi, P. (eds), Reforming Vietnamese Higher Education. London: Springer. Welch, A. (2011). The dragon, the tiger cubs and higher education. Competitive and cooperative China-ASEAN relations. In Jarvis, D., and Welch, A. (eds), ASEAN Industries and the Challenge from China. London: Palgrave, pp. 39–122. Welch, A. (2012). Locating Indonesia within the emergent regionalism of southeast Asian higher education. In Hawkins, J., Mok, K., and Neubauer, D. (eds), Higher Education Regionalization in Asia Pacific: Implications for Governance, Citizenship and University Transformation. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 91–115. Welch, A. (2014). Richer relations? Evolving ASEAN-Australia relations in higher education. Towards a regional knowledge network? In He, B., and Woods S. (eds), The AustraliaASEAN Dialogue. Tracing 40 Years of Partnership. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 145– 166. Welch, A. (2016). Irregular regionalism? China’s borderlands and ASEAN higher education: trapped in the prism. In Robertson, S., Olds, K., Dale, R., and Dang, Q-a. (eds), Global Regionalisms and Higher Education: Projects, Processes, Politics. Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar, pp. 166–190. Welch, A. (2018). China’s southern borderlands and ASEAN higher education: A cartography of connectivity. In Meusburger, P., Heffernan, M., and Suarsana, L. (eds), Geographies of the University. Cham: Springer, pp. 567–602. Welch, A. (2019). Higher education in Asia. In Rury, J., and Tamura, E. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 302–315. Welch, A., and Cai, H. (2011). Enter the Dragon: the internationalization of China’s higher education system. In Ryan, J. (ed.), China’s Higher Education Reform and Internationalization. London: Routledge, pp. 9–33. Welch, A., and Hao, J. (2013). Returnees and diaspora as source of innovation in chinese higher education. Frontiers of Education in China, 8(2): 214–238. Welch, A., and Postiglione, G. (2020). Silk Road South. China–Malaysia collaboration in higher education. In van de Wende, M. et al. (eds), The New Silk Road. Connecting Universities between China and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CONCLUSION

159

Welch, A., and Zhang, Z. (2008). Higher education and global talent flows: Brain drain, overseas Chinese intellectuals, and diasporic knowledge networks. Higher Education Policy, 21(4): 519–537. Wen, W. (2016) China’s approach to HE regional cooperation with ASEAN . In Collins, C., Lee, M., Hawkins, J., and Neubauer, D. (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Asian Higher Education. New York/London: Palgrave, pp. 173–182. Xiamen University Malaysia (XMUM) (n.d.). Xiamen University Malaysia. http://www.xmu. edu.my/14674/list.htm (accessed December 22, 2019). Yang, R. (2012). Internationalization, regionalization and soft power. China’s relations with ASEAN member countries in higher education. Frontiers of Chinese Education, 7(4): 486–507. Yang, R., and Welch, A. (2010). Globalisation, transnational academic mobility and the Chinese knowledge diaspora: An Australian case study. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(5): 593–607. Zhejiang University (2018). Zhejiang University Academic Report 2018. Hangzhou, Zhejiang University.

160

SECTION II

Latin America and the Caribbean

161

162

CHAPTER TWELVE

Introduction Higher Education, Internationalization, and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean JOCELYNE GACEL- Á VILA

LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT AND CHALLENGES Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) represents 7.2 percent of the global economy with 8.4 percent (648 million inhabitants) of the world population (United Nations, 2019). In terms of economic growth, after several years (2004–2007) of having an average annual growth rate of 5.1 percent, due to a boom in commodity prices, it began to decrease to below 1 percent (0.84 percent) in 2013–2017 (CEPAL, 2019). By 2018, the regional gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was $16,602 PPP (purchasing power parity) dollars, far below that of the OECD countries of $45,935 PPP, but close to the world average of $17,971 PPP. In terms of national income, LAC countries are somewhere between the Upper Middle Income countries ($19,020 PPP) and the Middle Income countries ($12,966 PPP) (The World Bank, 2019). The main cause of this regional economic weakness is due to several reasons, such as a heavy dependence on the foreign commodity market; lack of an adequate integration to global value chains; low and stagnant labor productivity,1 as well as weak institutions. As far as social inclusion is concerned, despite the fact that poverty decreased significantly during the last decade from 45 percent to 30 percent of its population (OECD, ECLAC, 2019),2 around 40 percent of the population are now at risk of falling back into poverty due to casual jobs and poor social protection. On the matter of equity, LAC has been coined “the most unequal region of the world” (Bárcenas, 2016) due to its high inequality indicators. These economic and social obstacles impinge on the region’s competitiveness, shown by its low competitiveness ranking (57th) below the median global score (60th) (World Economic Forum, 2018). Likewise, LAC countries rank low in the World Competitiveness Index, with Mexico in 46th place, Uruguay 53rd, Costa Rica 55th, Peru 66th, Brazil 72nd, Argentina 81st; except for Chile in 33rd place (World Economic Forum, 2018).

LAC has only 40 percent of the labor productivity of the European Union (OECD, ECLAC, 2019). Mexico is an exception with a poverty rate of 52 percent by 2019.

1 2

163

164

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Additionally, the regional index in the Human Development Index (0.758) is below the OECD average (0.895) (UNDP, 2018). In addition to these economic and social issues, LAC is facing external challenges, as are other regions, such as a complex and volatile global scenario for the forthcoming years, characterized by escalating trade tensions, global financial tightening, growing national inequalities, and the surge of political populism, among other trends (OECD, ECLAC, 2019), (Marginson, 2018). For these reasons, the OECD recommendation for LAC is to strengthen international cooperation as a key strategy for development, in addition to implementing public policies to reinforce education and skills, innovation, productivity, and social inclusion (OECD, ECLAC, 2019).

Higher Education Context One of the major trends in higher education worldwide has been the rise of students’ access with an increase of the World Gross Tertiary Enrolment Ratio (GTER) from 15.6 percent in 1995 to 37.88 percent by 2017 (UNESCO, 2019). In this respect, the most positive feature of the LAC higher education sector has been its massive expansion, in the last two decades, in response to its demographic growth and the increase of population numbers living in cities. The region’s GTER has grown from 20 percent in 2000 to 51 percent in 2017, above world average. In this respect, Argentina (89 percent), Chile (91 percent), and Uruguay (62 percent) have GTERs in line with most OECD countries, except Mexico with a GTER of 38 percent. The private sector has played a significant role in this expansion, since it currently absorbs 54 percent of the higher education (HE) enrollment (Brunner and Miranda, 2016; Ferreira, Ciro, Botero, Haimovich, and Urzúa, 2017). Nevertheless, there is still a deep gap in access for economically disadvantaged sectors: with a bare increase from 4 percent in 2000 to 6 percent in 2013 for HE students from the lowest income quintile (Ferreira et al., 2017). In 2016, only 3.6 percent of this quintile concluded HE against 41.7 percent of the high-income quintile (ECLAC, 2019). In conclusion, when compared with other regions, LAC has shown mediocre progress in reducing inequality in access to HE. There are also concerns and challenges in terms of quality, relevance, financing, efficiency, and program diversity. In terms of public and private expenses for higher education, LAC countries spend on average 1.38 percent of their Gross National Product (GNP) (Ferreira et al., 2017), below the 2.4 percent of Korea, the 1.8 percent of the United Kingdom, and the 1.6 percent of the OECD average (OECD, 2019). Chile is the country with the highest HE expense (2.5 percent) in the region (1.35 percent and 1.18 percent from the public and private sectors), followed by Brazil (2.4 percent) (RICYT, 2019; UNESCO, 2019). The other significant challenge is the high dropout rates in undergraduate programs. The completion rate in most LAC countries is on average 46 percent, with a 22 percent dropout rate. The remaining 32 percent of students are enrolled in coursework but do not graduate on time. Furthermore, LAC students spend 36 percent more time than required to complete their degree (Ferreira et al., 2017). This situation is mostly due to the enrollment of part-time students, and to a traditional curriculum of a five-year duration plus a lengthy thesis. There is also a low enrollment rate at postgraduate level, with 4.9 percent at master’s level and 0.81 percent for PhD studies (UNESCO, 2019). Enrollment is also unbalanced: very high in some areas and insufficient in others, with 40 percent of

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

165

the students in the areas of social science, administration, business and law, in contrast with only 16 percent in scientific disciplines and technological professions (UNESCO, 2019). Additionally, there is a very low number of faculty with doctoral studies: in Chile 10.94 percent, Peru 7.9 percent, Cuba 7.44 percent, and Colombia 7.09 percent, with Brazil as the exception with 41.6 percent (Red Indices, 2019). A further concern is to match the skills demanded from the labor market with the graduates’ profiles, with 36 percent of firms suffering a major constrain on their operation due to an inadequately educated workforce; in sharp contrast to a 21 percent world average and 14.8 percent for the OECD. The closest region to LAC in this respect is SubSaharan Africa (22.3 percent) (OECD, CAF, ECLAC, 2015). From a comparative perspective, in absolute terms, and in proportion to GDP, LAC devotes only 0.69 percent to research and development activities, compared with 2.41 percent in North America and Western Europa. In respect to world knowledge production, LAC contribution in the last two decades was around 4 percent (Santelices, 2010; RICYT, 2019); with 74 percent of the researchers working in HE; 14.5 percent in public or private companies; 11 percent in governmental institutions; and 0.83 percent in private non-profit organizations (RICYT, 2019). Only 43.3 percent of researchers in Chile hold a PhD degree; 38 percent in Brazil, and 34 percent in Argentina. In 2018, LAC has only ten research universities among the top 500 research universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities, which are located in four countries: Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Mexico (Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2018). Additionally, the sector has a limited internationalization with respect to important structural factors that hinder HE development, such as financing, governance, institutional management, high professionalization, and lack of flexibility of the curriculum, as Marmolejo (2018: 54) points out: Without establishing a causal relationship, there is no doubt that the specific characteristics of LAC are directly linked to the current level of the internationalization of higher education. In a system with relevant entanglements between its different components, tertiary education in LAC requires a more effective insertion in the international context. Its performance needs to be submitted to periodic comparison by relevant international peers and, the analysis of its strengths and weaknesses be analyzed from an international perspective in order to act in a more effective way at a system level. In this context, internationalization reaffirms its importance as a transversal axis for the improvement of higher education.

THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Significance and Relevance of Internationalization The 2018 UNESCO Regional Conference re-affirms the principles of higher education as a public good and knowledge production as a social good at the service of humanity. Internationalization is seen as a process rooted in humanism and solidarity, contributing to a better understanding and cooperation between cultures and nations, in order to foster inter-institutional collaboration based on relationships among equals, mutual respect and a win-win situation for all partners. A mercantilist internationalization favoring the hegemonic and denationalizing values of globalization is strongly rejected.

166

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Nowadays, higher education has to transform itself, in order to make its function more relevant to social needs and to enhance the quality of teaching and research to acceptable international levels. This requires state policies and long-term strategies that go beyond the temporal scope of governments. This implies: a wide internationalization of academic programs; mobility of faculty and students; international recognition and accreditation of courses and degrees; a model of internationalization based on solidarity and horizontal cooperation, intercultural dialogue, respect for the idiosyncrasy and identity of all countries and partners; the promotion of interinstitutional projects and university networks; the integration of academic spaces, and the strengthening of national knowledge capacity.

THE MAIN TRENDS OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROCESS While some national reports have been written on the internationalization trends in the different LAC countries, the studies on the region as a whole are very few. Of these, the most important have been the publication of the World Bank (WB) (de Wit, Jaramillo, Gacel-Ávila, and Knight, 2005) and the different editions of the Global Survey on Internationalization Trends of the International Association of Universities (IAU) (Knight, 2003; 2006; Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2010; 2014). A recent study, named the “Regional Survey on Internationalization Trends in LAC,” carried out by the UNESCO Observatory on Internationalization and Networks (OBIRET)3 is the first of its kind, and has been designed for the specific context of the region as a whole (Gacel-Ávila and RodríguezRodríguez, 2018). Its main purpose was to get a detailed panorama of the different characteristics of the internationalization process in the region ten years after the aforementioned WB study, as well as to make a comparison with the global trends reported in the IAU Global Survey. The following section will depict the main findings of the mentioned OBIRET Survey.

Benefits, Risks, and Obstacles of Internationalization The main benefits of internationalization for LAC HEIs are: “Developing students’ international profile”; “Improving the academic quality of educational programs”; “Strengthening the internationalization of curriculum”; “Improving research and knowledge production”; and “Increasing the institution’s international prestige/profile.” The main risks of internationalization for institutions are: “International opportunities only favour affluent students”; “The inequality in benefits in collaborative relations”; “Unequal benefits between partners”; “The prevalence of the center-periphery paradigm”; “Excessive competition among institutions”; and “Overemphasis on internationalization at the expense of other institutional priorities.” In terms of the main risks of internationalization for the countries, “Brain drain” was ranked first, in contrast with the global ranking that put it fifth, while putting first “The commercialization of education” (third for LAC); followed by “Increase in inequality among TEIs of the same country”; “Increase in social inequality”; and “Loss of cultural identity.”

Based at the University of Guadalajara and la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP), Mexico.

3

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

167

The main external factors that foster internationalization are: “Government policy”; “Regional policies”; “Availability of international cooperation”; “Search for alternative resources of funding”; “Productive sector demand”; and “Global university rankings.” It is worth pointing out that the region ranked “Productive sector demand” in fifth place, in contrast with the global average, which put it in second place. The main internal obstacles to internationalization are: “Insufficient funding”; “Lack of language proficiency on the part of students and academics” (ranked higher than in other regions); “Administrative and bureaucratic difficulties”; “Lack of information about international opportunities”; and “Lack of strategy or plan to guide the process.” The main reported external obstacles to internationalization are: “Limited public funding for internationalization”; “Lack of national policies and programs to support internationalization”; “Difficulties in recognizing studies and transferring academic credits”; “Visa restrictions imposed by other countries on our students and academics”; and “Visa restrictions imposed by our country on foreign students and academics.” In comparison with the global findings, LAC gives greater weight to the lack of national policies and public funding.

Organizational Structures Internationalization is a key strategy mentioned in the institutional development plan (IDP) of 83 percent of LAC HEIs, with 53 percent considering it “very important” in contrast with 69 percent worldwide. Having a specific institutional plan for internationalization is reported by 47 percent; having it in development stages is reported by 38 percent, and 15 percent report having no plan, in contrast with 53 percent, 22 percent, and 8 percent respectively at the global level (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014). Only 12 percent report having a plan for internationalization at the level of academic units (19 percent in the private sector and 7 percent in the public sector). Having a budget for internationalization activities is reported by 80 percent, with the main sources being: institutional budget; funding from public institutions; and funding from international or private organizations. The private sector stands out for being more active in procuring external funding. With regard to human resource policy, to hire, promote, and renew the contracts of academic personnel, only 56 percent of the HEIs report considering international experience; 61 percent of them do not even offer a program for international sabbaticals. Only 60 percent report having registered the academics who have obtained a degree abroad. In conclusion, 42 percent of the institutions that include internationalization in their IDP, and 38 percent of those reporting that their authorities consider “internationalization as a very important priority,” have not established a human resource policy that fosters the international profile of their academics, which is a crucial factor in the consolidation of an internationalization process. HEIs should take advantage of their own internationalized human resources for the consolidation of the institutional process of internationalization. Only 29 percent of the HEIs have a quality assurance, evaluation, and monitoring system ad hoc to their internationalization process; with 36 percent having it in development stages, while 32 percent have none, which strongly contrasts with the 67 percent at a global level (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014). In conclusion, 83 percent of the HEIs stating they have an internationalization policy do not link it to an evaluation and quality assurance procedure; 86 percent report having an internationalization office (IO), of which 31 percent are on the highest tier within the institutional hierarchy, as opposed to 60 percent worldwide (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2010). Consequently, most

168

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

IOs in LAC (52 percent) are on the second tier, and 16 percent on the third. Over half of the institutions (54 percent) indicate that they have not set up management and follow-up structures at the level of academic units. Only 26 percent indicate that they have people in charge of internationalization activities in all of their academic units, and 19 percent have them in just some of their units. Having a staff of between one and five people is reported by 72 percent of IOs. With regard to the profile of the heads of IOs, a majority (60 percent) are women with graduate studies (45 percent with master’s degrees), with more PhDs in the public sector (39 percent) than in the private sector (21 percent). In the public sector, the proportion of men and women is 53 percent and 47 percent respectively; while in the private sector, the proportion is 70 percent and 30 percent respectively. With regard to the seniority of the heads of IOs, 36 percent have held the position for only one or two years; 29 percent for four to ten years; and 18 percent for two to four years. Thus, the average seniority in the region is 5.6 years, and is higher in the private sector (6.8 years) compared with 4.4 years in the public sector. Turnover in IOs is very high, especially in the public sector, which raises concerns, as the lack of professionalization in IOs undermines viability and efficiency in conducting internationalization activities. In the private sector, IO heads tend to hold their position longer (average of seven years), which suggests more professionalized management than in the public sector. With regard to financial resources, only 20 percent have a budget, while 26 percent report none. Only 33 percent obtain funding from alternative sources (54 percent in the private sector against 19 percent in the public sector). Even though external communication with potential partners and internal communication with the members of the university community constitute a basic and fundamental tool for ensuring a proactive and comprehensive internationalization process, only half of the HEIs have a website to promote their internationalization process, with over 40 percent of them having none. Additionally, of the websites that exist for this purpose, most are available only in the local language, with a small percentage in English. And even though participating in international education events is highly beneficial for the internationalization process, international visibility, contacts with potential partners, and the updating of staff, most IOs (59 percent) do not participate in any international education events.

Program Structures International Office’s Main Activities These are: student mobility, academic mobility, and participation in cooperation projects, with a low level of involvement observed for curricular internationalization, as well as little initiative for fund raising and recruitment of international students. Academic Collaboration Agreements The top priority regions for collaboration are: Western Europe, LAC and North America, followed by Asia and Eastern Europe. Within the region, the Southern Cone countries, mainly Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, are the most popular destinations. The greatest number of agreements are signed with HEIs from LAC itself, followed by: Western Europe, North America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Oceania. The regions with the fewest agreements are Africa and the Middle East. With regard to intraregional collaboration, the countries with the greater number of agreements are Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, and Brazil.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

169

Faculty Mobility Financial support is offered by 62 percent of the HEIs for the outgoing mobility of their faculty, which means that 34 percent of the HEIs promoting internationalization as a key strategy for institutional development do not offer any financial support for that purpose. The preferred destinations for academics are: The United States, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, France, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Portugal, and Germany. In terms of inbound mobility, the countries of origin of the foreign academics are: Spain, the United States, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, France, Chile, Germany, and Portugal. Outbound Student Mobility At a global level, from 2012 to 2017, the percentage of mobile students increased from 2.05 percent to 2.3 percent. Nevertheless, the increase in LAC has been much smaller: from 1.09 percent to 1.14 percent. LAC is the second region in the world where mobility growth has been the lowest, far from the increases experienced by the countries of Central Asia where the volume has almost doubled, or Southeast Asia where it has grown more than a third (IESALC, UNESCO, 2019). According to an OBIRET Survey, 70 percent of the outbound students are enrolled in undergraduate programs, followed by 17 percent in university upper technical degree programs, 8 percent in master’s, and 5 percent in PhD. With regard to the total enrollment reported in the OBIRET Survey (2014– 2015 academic year), only 0.3 percent of LAC students was engaged in academic mobility at the undergraduate level, and 0.03 percent for postgraduate students. The students’ preferred destinations are: Western Europe, LAC itself, North America, and Eastern Europe. The main countries of destination are: Spain, the United States, Argentina, France, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Germany, Canada, and Colombia. These data are confirmed by the recent IESALC study (2019), which reports that the preferred international destinations for LAC students in 2017 were: 54 percent United States and Europe, 38 percent LAC, and 8 percent other. Of the HEIs, 62 percent offer financial support for student mobility (6 percent grants full support; 43 percent partial support; and 13 percent offer both types). According to Altbach and Engberg (2014), the majority of students who move abroad fully assume the expenses of their education by providing huge sums of money to the main recipient countries and their universities. In Mexico, for example, 48 percent of international student mobility is financed by families (Maldonado, Cortés, and Ibarra, 2016). The main obstacle to student mobility falls under the category of “Lack of language proficiency among students”; followed by “Administrative or bureaucratic difficulties”; “Students’ family and/or job commitments”; “Low level of interest or participation among students” and “Curricular inflexibility.” Inbound Student Mobility LAC is one of the least attractive international destinations, hosting only 3.5 percent of international students. Of the inbound students, 69 percent are enrolled in undergraduate programs, while 14 percent are in university upper technical degree programs, 12 percent in master’s, and 5 percent in PhD programs. They come first from LAC itself, followed by Western Europe, North America, and Eastern Europe. With regard to the countries, inbound exchange students come from: Spain, Mexico, Colombia, the United States, Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru. According to IESALC (2019), the origin of international students in LAC in 2017 was: 12 percent United States and Europe; 69 percent LAC; and 19 percent Other. In terms of intraregional mobility, most inbound mobility comes from Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. LAC is the third region in which intra-regional mobility is, in terms of

170

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

percentage, higher, after North America and Western Europe, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe (42 percent). In all other world regions, intraregional mobility represents one third of the total. Globally, intraregional mobility has been reduced by almost 9 percent in favor of interregional mobility, which seems to be a continuing sustained trend. However, LAC is an exception to this global trend, since its intraregional mobility has continued to grow (IESALC, 2019). In sum, the great majority of exchange students, both inbound and outbound, are enrolled in undergraduate programs. A characteristic of the region is that it sends more students than it receives. There is a difference between sectors: while the private sector has achieved a certain balance between outbound and inbound students, the public sector has not, sending more students than it receives. According IESALC (2019), a mobility deficit indicates that the higher education systems are not attractive enough for international students for different reasons (academic, economic, or social) and that, for the same reason, national and regional students have to study abroad. In the case of Mexico, this deficit is of 20 percent; while Brazil sends 2.5 times more students abroad than it receives; Chile almost three times more and Colombia eight times more. The deficit for the region is estimated of ten to one, meaning that at least ten LAC students go abroad for receiving one foreign student. There are three exceptions to this pattern: Argentina, Dominican Republic, and Costa Rica. In these three cases, there are more ingoing than outgoing students. The countries with the greatest number of outgoing students are, in this order, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru (IESALC, 2019). With the exception of Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, in terms of academic mobility, the Caribbean island states are configured as a group with a differential dynamic with respect to the rest of the region. Its peculiar geographical and linguistic characteristics explain it, but its offer is also decisive, which, due to its close ties to the United States, makes some of these countries more attractive destinations internationally compared with the rest of Latin America. According to this study, if we compare this group of Caribbean island countries with the countries of Latin America, three fundamental features stand out: a limited offer of higher education that encourages the transfer of students abroad; its configuration as an internationally attractive destination for higher education students; and, finally, the low mobility existing between these same countries and the practically nonexistent link with respect to Latin America (IESALC, 2019). The Internationalization of the Curriculum Of the HEIs, 51 percent declare they do not have any policy for the internationalization of curriculum. The most frequent activities carried out are the traditional ones like: “Outgoing student mobility” (87 percent); “Inbound student mobility” (75 percent); and “Inviting foreign professors to engage in academic activities at the institution” (73 percent); 72 percent do not offer massive open online course (MOOCs), and 82 percent no virtual mobility program. The main reported obstacles are: administrative or bureaucratic difficulties, like credit transfer, differences in academic calendars, inflexible institutional regulations, and lack of institutional policies; 39 percent report offering international joint and/or dual degree programs; with a majority of dual-degree programs (34 percent), against 14 percent for joint degrees. A breakdown by sector shows that the private sector is more active (47 percent) than the public sector (34 percent). Compared with the results of the 2014 IAU survey, which reported a world average of 41 percent for joint degrees and 44 percent for dual degrees, LAC lags behind in this regard, and has shown no progress in recent years.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

171

Of the joint degree programs, 47 percent of are offered at undergraduate level, followed by master’s degrees (26 percent) and PhDs (23 percent). In the case of dual degrees, 37 percent are offered at undergraduate level, followed by 33 percent for master’s, and 22 percent for PhDs. For university upper technical degrees, the majority are double degrees and offered by public institutions. For undergraduate and master’s degrees, most programs are double degrees offered by the private sector. Most collaborative PhD programs, both joint and double degrees, are offered by public institutions. The greatest number of institutions offering collaborative programs are in: Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Chile. The Dominican Republic and Peru also stand out for their relatively high number of institutions offering this type of program. Mexico leads the list in the number of programs offered, followed by Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina. The countries that collaborate the most with LAC in joint degree programs are: Spain, France, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Portugal, Germany, and Italy. In the case of dual-degree programs, LAC’s major partners are: France, Spain, Italy, the United States, and Germany. The greatest number of joint and dual-degree programs at LAC institutions are offered in the fields of Social Science and Engineering and Technology.º The field of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences has the fewest collaborative programs in the region, in both modalities. Institutional Language Teaching Policy Of the participating institutions, 79 percent report having an institutional language teaching policy in place, with 41 percent having proficiency in a foreign language as an admission and/or graduation requirement for all their academic programs. In recent years, significant efforts towards the improvement of the level and quality of foreign language teaching are reported. However, this area still persists as one of the categories in which the region lags behind. According to the Interamerican Dialogue Education Program: “the region lacks developed national policies for language learning. This combined with the general low level of teachers, does not help to improve the levels of bilingualism, despite the efforts that have been made in the region for several decades” (El Espectador, 2017). Furthermore, a report released by the Centre for Analysis of the Inter-American Dialogue reports that LAC is 3.8 points below other world regions in the English Knowledge Index of the Education First Institute (EF), although the “new generations are demonstrating a higher level.” The aforementioned study indicates that the lack of English limits employment opportunities in the region and their competitiveness, in addition to their ability to attract foreign investment (El Espectador, 2017). Consequently, more than in any other region, language proficiency constitutes one of the biggest limitations to the consolidation of internationalization and to the graduates’ international profile, which without a doubt hobbles the region in terms of competitiveness at the global scale. A solution to this problem calls for, on the one hand, wider-ranging public policies, and on the other, a good quality instruction starting at the basic levels of the educational system. To achieve this, the ministries of education of the entire region must expand their foreign language teaching programs and improve the quality of their teachers, programs, and methods. The disciplinary or professional areas of joint and dual-degree programs have been classified according to the latest edition of the Frascati Manual of the OECD, which includes six areas of knowledge (OECD, 2015). As in the manual, this chapter capitalizes the words representing these OECD disciplinary areas.

4

172

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The Training of Graduates with Global Citizenship Skills Another point of concern is what Madera (2018) points out as essential for the region, which is to train citizens to be able to act with relevance in complex scenarios and effectively insert themselves into global dynamics based on knowledge. Educational systems need reconfiguration to be more inclusive, to improve quality, and to train graduates able to interpret the world stage, its trends and requirements, as well as to address new educational needs for sustainable development. This implies paradigmatic transformations in educational models, in articulation with local-regional-global dynamics, in educational institutions and their main functions, and in the profile of academics. This implies a deep transformation of the traditional ways in which teachers are trained, as education has become a global profession, which requires highly competent educators who are knowledge managers with technological skills and a vocation for cooperation; who are creative and innovative leaders with a prospective vision, committed to their local reality and who are able to interpret a changing world; who would be motivating professionals, capable of promoting meaningful learning in their students and accompanying them to critically and proactively build their life projects in a plural and complex scenario (Imbernón, 2005; Reimers, 2009; cited by Madera, 2018: 96). Unfortunately, there is common agreement among experts and education stakeholders that LAC education is failing in this respect. Poor teaching standards; ineffective pedagogical practices; a weak use of information and communication technologies, among others, are constantly reported in the Region (Burns and Luque, 2014; cited in Madera, 2018: 92). Therefore, according to Madera (2018), it is crucial for LAC to design academic policies, strategies, and programs that promote innovative teacher training oriented towards national development, that consider global trends and that integrate international best practices. Teacher educators need to adopt a global perspective, assume international standards, modernize instructional processes, and broaden the perspectives of students. Internationalization of Research and Knowledge Production Although the internationalization of research is on the agenda of all countries, from an integral perspective, there are no explicit policies for its promotion. In general, traditional international cooperation activities continue to be managed through ministries, councils, and institutions, which are usually insufficiently articulated with the units responsible for the design and implementation of the scientific policies either at national or institutional levels (Sebastián and Barrere, 2018: 145). The scientific production of LAC amounted, in 2014, to 117,996 publications indexed in Scopus, which represents 4.15 percent of the world production of this database. The radiography of the internationalization of research in LAC shows an intensity that can be considered moderate and heterogeneous in all countries, with some islands of greater intensity in countries with a higher level of research development, like Brazil, Mexico, and Chile. Internationalization processes have generally followed induced dynamics, more by the scientific communities themselves, than by explicit policies to promote internationalization. Internationalization has sometimes been accelerated by initiatives outside the Region, like the European Union (Sebastián and Barrere, 2018: 149). According to the same authors, a good part of the LAC scientific communities was generated from training experiences abroad, and the influence of external environments historically marked the orientation of fields and lines of research. To pursue doctoral studies in a foreign country has been a generalized scheme based on the fact that the

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

173

supply of national programs is insufficient, of poor quality, or, simply, because there is a lack of a doctoral offer. As long as LAC countries have been acquiring capabilities, training abroad has become less dependent. Although the offer of doctoral study programs is still limited in more than half of the LAC countries, some have implemented in the last few decades public policies to promote studying abroad as a way to accelerate the capacity building and diversify the thematic specialization of national scientific communities. Considering the current scenario of the region, qualitative changes in internationalization processes are not envisioned, and a continuity of the current pattern is expected. An increase in internationalization of research requires its incorporation as an objective in national scientific policies as a tool to improve the quality, relevance, productivity, and visibility of research. According to the OBIRET Survey, 56 percent of the HEIs do not have in place an institutional program to promote collaboration in research projects. The main obstacles to the internationalization of research reported are, in order of importance: “Lack of funding”; “Administrative or bureaucratic difficulties”; “Little experience and knowledge, or low international profile of academics”; “Lack of language proficiency on the part of academics”; and “Low level of interest or training of academic personnel.” Of the institutions, 65 percent report a program to promote the publication of scientific articles in indexed journals. In terms of patents obtained, 86 percent report not knowing the information or not having international patents. Only 4 percent report having at least one international patent in the last five years, while 6 percent report between two and nine international patents.

PUBLIC POLICIES TO FOSTER THE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROCESS IN LAC Like the World Bank report in 2005 (de Wit et al., 2005) the participating HEIs in the OBIRET Survey urge LAC governments to make a stronger commitment to the internationalization of the sector and promote more energetically national policies that provide the framework to make more efficient institutional processes. The great majority of institutions report that governmental programs lack continuity and do not provide sufficient financial support. There is an urgent need for more and wider public policies and regulatory frameworks for the promotion of student and faculty mobility, research collaboration, program quality assurance, and recognition of international degrees. A study conducted in 2016 by the British Council (BC) in twenty-six countries of different regions of the world showed that the four participating countries from LAC: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, are among the ones that obtained the lowest scores, along with Ethiopia, Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, in terms of governmental policies promoting internationalization. In contrast, other emerging countries such as Malaysia, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Vietnam obtained the highest scores (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). With regard to openness and international mobility, the level of government support provided in Brazil reached the score of “high,” while Chile and Colombia reported “low” and Mexico “very low” (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). For quality assurance of academic programs and recognition of international qualifications: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico reached a score of “very low,” positioning themselves in last place (Ilieva and Peak, 2016).

174

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In 2019, the BC made a new study to assess policy environment for international higher education (Usher, Ilieva, Killingley, and Tsiligiris, 2019), with twenty countries from different regions, including the same four Latin American countries. The study pointed out that national strategies for international higher education in LAC are notable mostly for their absence, or for being relatively weak on substance. According to the study, the government of Colombia does not have an internationalization strategy, though its accreditation council does (it deals mostly with improving quality assurance so Colombian institutions can be attractive to international partners). The Brazilian and Mexican governments do not have independent internationalization strategies, though internationalization does rate at least a passing mention in their most recent sectorial strategic plans. The Chilean government does not have an internationalization strategy either, though it does contribute funds to institutional internationalization plans and also contributes to LearnChile, which is a joint effort of several universities to raise the country’s profile as an education destination, but is not a “national strategy” per se (Usher et al., 2019). Regarding comprehensive international education strategies, from 1 (highest) to 0 (lowest) criteria: Brazil reaches 0.6, Chile and Colombia 0.6 and Mexico 0.3; while the UK, Netherlands, Germany, and France obtained the score of 1 (Usher et al., 2019). Regarding research collaboration, the BC points out that research expenditures are very low in the four Latin American countries and, consequently, the amounts devoted to international collaboration are also very small (Usher et al., 2019). In regard to funding for academic and research collaborations: Brazil got 0.6, Chile 0.1, Colombia 0.6, and Mexico 0 (Usher et al., 2019), although a specific analysis of Scopus data shows that there is a strong positive relationship between international research collaborations and the quality of the research produced, in terms of field weighted citation impact (FWCI). The more international the research, the higher its impact citation and, therefore, its quality (BC analysis. Scopus/Scval) (Usher et al., 2019). Globally, the BC study finds that the countries identified as having the most supportive “funding for academic mobility and global research” are: Australia, Germany, and Ireland, while the less supportive countries are: Mexico, Chile, and Russia. According to the BC, countries that attract a substantial proportion of international students (more than eight international students for every 100 students) have a combination of a developed international education strategy and robust funding for tertiary education (Usher et al., 2019). Furthermore, the study points out that there is clear evidence that government expenditure on tertiary education, as a percentage of GDP, and the concurrent existence of a well-developed international education strategy, is linked with higher ratios of inbound mobility (Usher et al., 2019). Therefore, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico are reported as zero net education exporters in IHE terms. In all four cases, the number of outbound students exceeds the number of inbound students by a factor of at least two to one (Usher et al., 2019). Quality assurance of students’ enrollment, and maintenance of standards of education provision, are best developed in countries with an established track record for hosting international students. On this point, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico scored 0 out of 10; Colombia 0.2; India 0.2; United States 0.6; Canada 0.5; France 0.5; and UK 0.8 (Usher et al., 2019). For “Recognition of foreign qualifications” and “Program and provider mobility”: Colombia and Mexico obtained 0.3; Brazil 0.4, and Chile 0.7 out of 10. The BC study points out that Latin American countries’ ability to attract foreign students is diminished both by the lack of “prestige” institutions and by the fact that very few courses are available in English (Usher et al., 2019).

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

175

The British Council’s final conclusions are that the low scores obtained by Latin America in different aspects concerning internationalization, mostly reflect the fact that these countries are still developing their HE systems and are less focused on internationalization as a policy issue. Consequently, it is a lower-priority policy area than in developed countries. Many LAC institutions declare that they would like to invest more in research and international collaboration, but they do not do so because it is not a national priority and monetary resources are scarce (Usher et al., 2019).

LAC ACADEMIC INTEGRATION: A GOAL IN COMMON? ENLACES 5 The general statement of the 2008 UNESCO Regional Conference on Higher Education (CRES) stated that “Latin American and Caribbean academic integration is an urgent and necessary task for the future of the region,” stressing that it needs its own regional approach (IESALC, 2008: 24). As a result, there was the creation of ENLACES, conceived as a regional platform for integration in higher education, under the coordination of IESALC. Ten years later, no solid and permanent governance scheme has been achieved and the question of membership has been left unsolved; that is, whether it will be acquired on an institutional basis or through national networks and councils (Thelier and Rodríguez, 2018). Nevertheless, it is a fact that the ideals of integration find very important rhetorical support among LAC higher education leaders, who often express their highest interest in promoting intra-regional cooperation, based on solidarity.

Main Intra-regional Initiatives In the absence of an integration initiative from governments of the region, the main promoters of intra-regional programs have been some university associations like the Asociación de Universidades Grupo Montevideo (AUGM); Unión de Universidades de América Latina y el Caribe (UDUAL); Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior (ANUIES); Asociación Colombiana de Universidades (ASCUN); Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo (CINDA), to name just a few. Their main programs are: the Degree Student Scale Program of AUGM (2001); the Student Mobility Program of the Interuniversity Development Centre (REDCINDA) (2003); the UDUAL Academic Mobility Academic Program (PAME) (2006), the Student Mobility Program of the Council of Rectors for the Integration of the Central West Sub-region of South America (CRISCOS) (1998), the Argentina-Mexico Youth Exchange program (JIMA) (2005) between the National University Council of Argentina, (CIN) and ANUIES; the BRACOL program (2011), between the Coimbra Group of Brazilian Universities and ASCUN; the Colombia-Argentina Academic Mobility (MACA) program (2013); the MACMEX program, between ANUIES and ASCUN (2013); and the BRAMEX program (2016) between the Coimbra Group of Brazilian Universities and ANUIES, just to give some examples (Theiler and Rodríguez, 2018). As far as intra-regional mobility of academics and staff is concerned, it is mainly financed by the HEIs themselves and receives little support from governments. However,

ENLACES stands for Espacio Latinoamericano y Caribeño de Educación Superior (Latinamerican and Caribbean Higher Education Space).

5

176

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

again some regional networks, like AUGM, CIN, and ANUIES have launched programs for this purpose: Teaching Scale program; the Mexico-Argentina Academic and Staff Mobility (MAGMA) between CIN and ANUIES; and the AUGM Manager and Administrative Scale Program (Theiler and Rodríguez, 2018).

LAC Integration: A Lack of Political Will? Although a significant number of regional actors are strongly committed to regional academic integration, the lack of governmental will of most LAC countries is evident. Consequently, the integration initiatives have not been provided with the necessary economic support and the corresponding organizational bureaucracy. Therefore, the whole process of integration looks uncertain, and no important progress towards it has been achieved. Although the volume of regional cooperation and intraregional programs has increased, its level of success and impact is uneven and not up to expectation. Additionally, existing intra-regional alliances, programs, and networks are mainly subregional and are of limited scope, given the small amounts of individuals moved in relation to the size of the higher education systems of the Region. In sum, no integration policy has yet emerged at the level of the entire Region, as is the case in other regions like Europe, of course, but even in Asia and Africa. LAC lacks a supranational regional organization that promotes, coordinates, and supports integration efforts. Efforts, development, and continuity are strongly influenced by the political and economic fluctuations that prevail in the different countries of the Region. Furthermore, the organizations working towards this end have limited or almost null dialogue or coordination with each other, causing a superposition of actions, and a great dispersion of efforts and energies. It looks that, instead of favoring development as a collective aspiration, the different parties and stakeholders end up attending sectorial or circumstantial interests. It is also possible that the imbalances among the capacities of the different parties prevent the construction of a unified vision for the entire Region. Although an advantage of the region is apparently its linguistic and cultural homogeneity, its higher education systems are characterized by a high level of heterogeneity (Theiler and Rodríguez, 2018).

CONCLUSION This chapter has attempted to depict some of the most relevant features of the present internationalization process of the region. First, it must be acknowledged that the current characteristics, gaps, and challenges of the HE sector have a direct impact on the state of development of LAC internationalization process. For example, the strong demand for the expansion of enrollment has not allowed sufficient attention to be given to the development of global citizenship skills in students, which ultimately limits the competitiveness of the Region in a globalized economy. Likewise, the low level of R & D financing greatly limits the ability of researchers to interact with their international peers and to carry out work with greater global relevance. The main findings of the OBIRET Survey conclude that progress has been made in the region’s internationalization efforts, especially thanks to the institutions’ initiatives. Internationalization is now a priority on the agenda of institutional development, and management structures have been adjusted accordingly. There has been a significant increase in the number of programs and activities, especially in terms of the international

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

177

formation of human resources at graduate level; undergraduate student mobility; faculty mobility; participation in international networks; and important efforts have been made to improve the proficiency of foreign languages. Intraregional cooperation has also made significant headway. However, in order to achieve a comprehensive internationalization process, our region needs to improve significantly in certain aspects. Indeed, although the region has multiplied its international activities in the past decades, they have generally been mainly based on individual initiatives, isolated actions, and a great dispersion of efforts. Although the internationalization process needs carefully crafted, institutionalized, and professionalized organizational structures, in reality it is mainly managed without planning, evaluation, or institutionalized policies, but basically in reaction to contingencies. As a result, internationalization activities are still largely marginal to institutional development. Therefore, LAC institutions need to build capacity, especially in terms of their organizational structures (institutional policies, planning, financing, evaluation and management of internationalization activities) as well as their program structures (broadening student and academic mobility and offering stronger support for the internationalization of research and international cooperation, and in particular in programs of Internationalization at Home). The main conclusions of the OBIRET findings basically reflect the same ones as the 2005 WB report: Internationalization is frequently mentioned in the speeches and official statements of educational authorities [. . .]. In spite of this recognition, there is still a lack of explicit policies on the matter. Very few institutions have developed broad policy initiatives on the process of internationalization; at best, the internationalization strategy is expressed in the institutional development plan. Few institutional documents describe the process of internationalization thoroughly, or its fundamental principles, priorities, objectives, programs, regulations, and quality evaluation and planning procedures [. . .] International activities seem to be managed and organized on the margins. They are not integrated into the core of institutional development or into the main thrust of the institution’s substantive functions [. . .]. HEIs do not yet plan their own international activities systematically, with objectives based on their needs, requirements and financial resources in the short, medium and long term. —de Wit et al., 2005: 360–361 The OBIRET findings reveal differences between the private and public sectors. In the private sector, there is more planning, quality assurance, and monitoring of the internationalization process, as well as a higher level of professionalization in the management structures and staff working in the International Offices. As reported in the World Bank report (Gacel-Ávila et al., 2005: 359), the OBIRET survey points out that the internationalization of the curriculum continues to be the most overlooked strategy, as mobility programs receive the most attention. The presence of guest professors and virtual mobility programs as methods for non-mobile students to experience internationalization are practically non-existent. Furthermore, only a small number of institutions have the budget to support faculty mobility in order to enhance their international profile, as well as the internationalization of the curriculum and research. Furthermore, LAC needs more public policies to facilitate and promote the process of institutional internationalization, and involvement from the business sector is almost nonexistent.

178

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

RECOMMENDATIONS It is important to stress that declaring internationalization an institutional priority requires a series of adjustments and reforms to the institution’s day-to-day work and practices, such as integrating the international dimension into the regular institutional planning, budget, and evaluation systems; as well as creating operational plans for internationalization in alignment with institutional priorities, with clear identifications of the financial and human resources required in order to ensure their feasibility and sustainability. Additionally, if the participation of the academic sector is critical to the internationalization process, then policies must be formulated to promote and reward academics’ involvement in internationalization activities, and databases must be created to keep track of the international experience of the academics that could spearhead this process, as it is essential for HEIs to take advantage of their own resources and the means at their disposal. Another urgent task is to improve the communication and international visibility strategies at the national, regional, and institutional levels in order to enhance the appeal of LAC higher education systems. With regard to the management structures for international activities, there has been an upgrade in terms of their position in the institutional hierarchy; nevertheless, these structures have not yet achieved the level of recognition enjoyed in other regions. It is also imperative to promote a higher level of professionalization of the staff working in the internationalization offices, by favoring experience over continuous turnover of personnel in response to the shifts in successive administration, as the lack of experience undermines the efficiency of the process. Management must also become more participatory, and involve the different actors of the university community, as only a minority of institutions have set up decentralized operations at the level of academic units. As for the internationalization of the curriculum, efforts need to be redoubled to establish international academic programs for the students who do not have the chance to study abroad through international dual-degree and virtual mobility programs. The internationalization of research should be promoted more systematically with wider national and institutional policies, as well as larger allocations of financial resources, so that the region can make more relevant contributions to the international production of knowledge. In other words, the process of internationalization of higher education in LAC has to be more comprehensive and less reactive. Another urgent area to attend to is the design and development of public policies to promote internationalization, an aspect in which the Region has been ranked last of the world regions. The internationalization of teacher training is also a pending task for the Region, as it is a strategic imperative to promote relevant and quality learning in the twenty-first century. Educational systems must be committed to offer students an education that enables them as competent citizens and professionals, involved in the development of their communities, their country, and the world at large. LAC needs to develop new competencies in students at all academic levels, in accordance with international standards, which in turn require substantive transformations in the ways and means of teaching, learning, and training. Regarding research, it is necessary to deepen the international dimension of national scientific policies, as a strategic tool for improving the quality, relevance, productivity, and visibility of research. Likewise, it is imperative that the governments of the Region support international cooperation more significantly as a means to create capacity building and to increase support for the mobility and exchange of scientists. The benefits that each country can derive from scientific and technological cooperation and integration depend on the presence of a capacity (financial and infrastructural) to develop activities around

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

179

these areas, and on the political will to create it; that is, political recognition of the role that sciences and technology play in development. Likewise, it is necessary to broaden the link between the main agents of innovation—business, technological infrastructure, and higher education—around competitiveness strategies. Scientific and technological cooperation can certainly contribute significantly to generate these links through the construction of joint capacities. The new concept that emerges is that integration serves to drive innovation processes (Aguirre-Bastos, 2018). Finally, it is key for LAC to strengthen regional integration. Although some internationalization and integration programs have been implemented at the sub-regional level, their development and continuity are strongly influenced by the political and economic fluctuations that prevail in the different countries of the Region. Organizations involved in integration efforts usually have limited dialogue and coordination among themselves, causing a lack of synergy. There are still no clear and consistent commitments regarding integration from national governments of the region, and consequently no integration policy has emerged at the level of the whole Region. As a conclusion, for internationalization processes to contribute more significantly to the transformation and improvement of the region’s educational sector, the international dimension must be assumed through public and institutional policies in order to enhance the institutionalization of the corresponding programs and structures in all university activities and at the three levels of the educational process: the micro level (the teaching– learning process in the classroom); the meso level (curricular structure and content), and the macro level (the formulation of institutional policies on teaching, research, and dissemination). Only then will LAC be able to reap the benefits of the internationalization and globalization of the educational sector, with the goal of perceptibly improving its educational systems, international competitiveness, and, consequently, the quality of life of the populations.

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2018). ARWU ranking. Retrieved from www. shanghairanking.com Aguirre Bastos C. (2018). Integración y Cooperación Regional e Internacional de América Latina y el Caribe en Ciencia y Tecnología: Pasado, presente y futuro. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (Coord.), CRES 2018. La educación superior. Internacionalización e Integración Regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina: UNESCO IESALC , pp. 155–186. Altbach, P.G., and Engberg, D. (2014). Global student mobility: The changing landscape. International Higher Education, 77: 11–13. Bárcenas, A. (2016). World Economic Forum. Global Agenda. Retrieved from http://www. weforum.org Brunner, J.J., and Miranda, D. (eds). (2016). Educación Superior en Iberoamérica. Informe 2016. Santiago de Chile: Universia-CINDA . CEPAL (2019). Anuario Estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago: CEPAL . De Wit, H., Jaramillo, C., Gacel-Ávila, J., and Knight, J. (eds) (2005). Higher Education in Latin America. The International Dimension. Washington: The World Bank. ECLAC (2019). Social Panorma of Latin America. Santiago: ECLAC . Egron-Polak, E., and Hudson, R. (eds) (2010). Internationalization of Higher Education: Global trends, Regional Perspectives. IAU 3rd Global Survey. Paris. International Association of Universities.

180

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Egron-Polak, E., and Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing Expectations, Fundamental Values. IAU 4th Global Survey. Paris: International Association of Universities. El Espectador (2017). América Latina, por debajo del índice mundial de nivel de inglés. October 4, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.elespectador.com/noticias/educacion/america-latinapor-debajo-del-indice-mundial-de-nivel-de-ingles-articulo-716417 Ferreira, M., Ciro, A., Botero, J., Haimovich, F., and Urzúa, F. (2017). At a Crossroads. Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington DC : The World Bank Group. Gacel-Ávila, J., y Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2018). Internacionalización de la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe: un balance. Guadalajara: UNESCO-IESALC . Gacel-Ávila, J., and Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2019). The Internationalization of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. An assessment. Guadalajara: UNESCOIESALC , Retrieved from: http://obiret-iesalc.udg.mx/sites/default/files/publicaciones/an_ assessment_ebook.pdf Gacel-Avila, J., Jaramillo, C. I., Knight, J., and de Wit H. (2005). The Latin American way: Trends, issues and directions. In de Wit, H., Jaramillo, C., I., Gacel-Avila, J., and Knight, J. (eds), Higher Education in Latin America. The International Dimension. Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. 341–368. IESALC (2008). Declaration and Action Plan of the Regional Conference on Higher Education in Latin América and The Caribbean. Caracas: IESLAC . Retrieved from https://www.uv.mx/ cuo/files/2014/06/CRES-2008.pdf IESALC-UNESCO (2019). La Movilidad en la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe: Retos y Oportunidades de un Convenio Renovado para el Reconocimiento de Estudios, Título y Diplomas. Caracas: IESALC . Ilieva, J., and Peak, M. (2016). The shape of global higher education. Retrieved from: https:// www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/f310_tne_international_higher_education_report_ final_v2_web.pdf Knight J. (2003). Internationalization of Higher Education Practices and Priorities: 2003 IAU Survey Report, IAU 1st Global Survey. Czech Republic: UNITISK s.r.o. Knight J. (2006). Internationalization of Higher Education: New Direction New Challenges, 2005 IAU Global Survey Report, IAU 2nd Global Survey. International Association of Universities. Madera, I. (2018). Educación y desarrollo sostenible al 2030: internacionalización de la formación docente en América Latina y el Caribe. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (ed.), CRES 2018. La educación superior. Internacionalización e integración regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina: UNESCO IESALC , pp. 89–110. Maldonado, A., Cortés, C., and Ibarra, B. (2016). Patlani. Encuesta mexicana de movilidad internacional estudiantil. México: DF.ANUIES . Marginson, S. (2018). The New Geo-politics of Higher Education. London: Centre for Global Higher Education. Marmolejo, F. (2018). La Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe en el contexto global. In Gacel-Ávila J. (ed.), CRES 2018, La educación superior. Internacionalización e Integración regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina, UNESCO IESALC , pp. 41–56. OECD (2019). Education at a Glance 2019. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD, ECLAC (2019). Latin America Economic Outlook 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD, CAF, ECLAC (2015). Latin American Economic Outlook 2015. Education, Skills and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

181

Red Indices (2019). Red Iberoamerican de Indicadores de ES . Retrieved from http://www. redindices.org Regional Conference on Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (2008). RICYT (2019). Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Iberoamericana e Interamericana. Retrieved from http://www.ricyt.org/indicadores Santelices, B. (ed.) (2010). El rol de las universidades en el desarrollo cientifico y tecnológico. Santiago: CINDA . Sebastián, J., and Barrere, R. (2018). Internacionalización de la Investigación en América Latina y el Caribe. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (ed.), CRES 2018, La Educación Superior, Internacionalización e Integración regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina: UNESCO IESALC , pp. 111–154. The World Bank (2019). The World Bank World Development Indicacators. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/ Thelier J.C., and Rodríguez M.S. (2018). La cooperación e integración universitaria en América Latina y el Caribe. Principales acciones y tendencias. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (ed.), CRES 2018, La Educación Superior, Internacionalización e Integración regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina: UNESCO IESALC , pp. 187–250. UNDP (2018). Human Development Indices and Indicators. Statistical Update. New York: UNDP. UNESCO (2019). UNESCO Statistics. Retrieved from data.uis.unesco.org/ United Nations. (2019). World Population Prospects 20190. Highlights. New York, NY: United Nations. Usher A., Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., and Tsiligiris, V. (2019). The Shape of Global Higher Education: The Americas. Retrieved from: https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/IHE/ knowledge-centre/global-landscape/shape-global-higher-education-vol-5 World Economic Forum (2018). The Global Competitiviness Report 2018 (K. Schwab, ed.). Geneva: World Economic Forum.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Internationalization of Higher Education in Brazil REN É E ZICMAN

THE BRAZILIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM Ranked the ninth largest economy in the world, the fourteenth largest producer of research publications globally, fifth in territorial size, and with a population of more than 210 million, Brazil has a relatively new and highly diversified higher education (HE) system. Although Brazilian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) share the same legal principles, they are extremely diverse and often differ from each other, depending on the kind of institution, level of maturity, administrative nature, and geographical location (Righetti and Gamba, 2019). In Brazil, there are different types of HEIs, classified according to their administrative category, operation, and academic entitlements. Public institutions are funded by the federal, state, and municipal governments while private institutions are independent from public funding. The private ones can be not for-profit, including communitarian, confessional or philanthropic institutions, and for-profit or profit-making institutions, established and maintained by one or more individuals and/or legal entities. Depending on their operation and corresponding academic entitlements, HEIs can be classed as: Universities, covering all areas of knowledge and whose mission includes teaching, research, and extension/outreach activities; University centers, educational institutions covering all areas of knowledge, with no explicit requirement to undertake research; Colleges, educational institutions covering some areas of knowledge, with no explicit requirement to undertake research; and Federal Institutes, a set of federal institutions, focused on vocational training, for secondary and higher education.

The Largest System of Higher Education in Latin America Brazil is home to the largest system of higher education in Latin America and is among the fifth largest in the world, with 2,537 HEIs. The private sector makes up 88.2 percent of them all. The 199 universities represent 7.8 percent of the total number of HEIs and account for 52.9 percent of undergraduate degrees enrollment. The Colleges represent 81.5 percent of HEIs. The most common broad field of study at tertiary level in Brazil is business, administration, and law, which accounts for 33 percent of recent graduates. The second most popular is education, with 20 percent of graduates. Most HEIs are small institutions, located far from the urban centers, and offer undergraduate courses. Public 182

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

183

and private not-for-profit universities have the best rankings and are the most internationalized institutions. They also offer postgraduate programs in most areas of knowledge. The six public universities of São Paulo state are responsible for almost half of Brazilian Science. Public institutions do not charge tuition fees for domestic or international students, whereas private universities charge a wide range of tuition fees (INEP, 2019). In 2017, only 15 percent of 20–29-year-olds were enrolled in tertiary education in Brazil, compared with an average of 22 percent in OECD countries. About 18 percent of adults (25–64-year-olds) in Brazil have attained tertiary education, similar to the attainment rate in Mexico but well below other Latin American countries such as Argentina (36 percent), Chile (25 percent), Colombia (23 percent), and Costa Rica (23 percent). In OECD countries, the average tertiary attainment rate is 39 percent, over twice that of Brazil. Over the past decade, however, there has been a considerable increase in tertiary attainment among the younger generation (25–34-year-olds), from 11 percent in 2008 to 21 percent in 2018 (OECD, 2019). Only 33 percent of students who enter a bachelor’s program in Brazil graduate within its theoretical duration (four or five years, depending on the program) (OECD, 2019).

Opportunities for Access to Higher Education Brazil offers 37,962 undergraduate programs to 8,451,748 enrolled students, with 75.4 percent (6,373,274) of these registered in private institutions (INEP, 2018). Brazil is home to the biggest educational conglomerate of private for-profit institutions in the world, which account for one in eight of all higher education students in the country. The dominance of fee-paying private provision, and the limited number of places in free public institutions, create a complex environment for policymakers seeking to ensure that access to tertiary education is not hindered by students’ socio-economic status. In a bid to expand opportunities for access to higher education in Brazil, the government provides the University for All Program (PROUNI) and the Higher Education Student Loan Fund (FIES). The FIES was created in 2001 and gives priority to low-income students enrolled in private higher education institutions that join the program, in courses with the Education Ministry’s seal of approval. It operates by providing financing/loans governed by specific conditions related to the loan and its repayment on more favorable terms than the standard banking market (FIES, 2019). The PROUNI was set up in 2005 and has already benefitted over 2.5 million high school students from the public or private system who have received full grants (69 percent) or partial grants to study in higher education institutions. To qualify for a full grant, the student’s per capita household income must amount to a maximum of three minimum wages. Affirmative action quotas are also available for people with disabilities, self-declared black and indigenous people, and teachers from the public institutions taking bachelor’s degree courses. In 2017, 46.3 percent of those enrolled in undergraduate courses in the private system received some kind of loan/grant (PROUNI, 2019). Since 2012, the public federal higher education institutions—Universities and Federal Institutes of Education, Science and Technology—have a guaranteed reserve of 50 percent of places in undergraduate courses for students who have received their entire high school education in the public system. This also takes into consideration the proportion of the population, which is black, of mixed race, or of indigenous origin in each state, according to the Brazilian population census (Lei de Cotas, 2012). The state institutions followed

184

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

the example of the federal public higher education institutions and also introduced affirmative actions. This has been done through internal regulations and/or laws passed in a number of Brazilian states. The private higher education institutions regulate their own racial and social quotas systems in the distribution of places in undergraduate courses (INEP, 2019).

An Impressive Postgraduate Education System Brazil is home to one of the most impressive postgraduate education systems among developing countries, providing master’s, doctorate, and post-doctoral studies. There has been a sharp increase in postgraduate studies in recent decades in all areas of study, with the main emphasis on agricultural sciences and multidisciplinary courses and, to a lesser extent, on engineering, and natural and earth science courses. Only 0.8 percent of 25–64-year-olds in Brazil have attained a master’s degree and only about 0.2 percent a doctorate (OECD, 2019). Most of the postgraduate expansion in the country has occurred in the public sector, which was responsible for the qualification of an average of over 30,000 new master’s degrees and 10,000 new doctorates a year between 2000 and 2016. The private sector has grown at a slower rate and awarded less than 20 percent of the master’s degrees and 13 percent of the doctorates in 2016 (CAPES, 2017). Postgraduate courses and activities are highly concentrated in public institutions (84.5 percent) and the more developed regions (44 percent in the Southeast). In 2018, the 4,175 programs, in 49 areas of knowledge, amounted to 173,671 master’s degree students and 114,867 doctorates, with 65,000 new master’s degrees and 23,000 doctorates awarded (CAPES, 2019). Between 2013 and 2018, Brazil appeared as the fourteenth largest producer of scientific publications in the world (SJR, 2018) and has increased its impact on the area of science by 15 percent. If this current trend is maintained then by 2021 Brazil will have reached the global average of 1.0 (Clarivates Analytics, 2018). The public higher education institutions were responsible for 91.54 percent of the 142,840 articles indexed in the Web of Science in the 2017–2019 period. There are eighteen public universities in Brazil that publish 1,000 studies every two years (equivalent to at least one publication per lecturer in this period) and which are highly active on the international stage. This group includes twelve federal universities in the large centers, particularly from the two most developed regions of the country, and all the six public universities in São Paulo state.

UNIVERSITY RANKINGS A Brazilian university entered the group of the 200 best universities in the world for the first time in 2011 in the ranking of the Times Higher Education (THE), created in 2004 (VEJA, 2011). In 2019, Brazil increased the number of universities that entered the THE list, with forty-six institutions. This boosted Brazil’s position from ninth in 2018 to the seventh country with most universities in the list, overtaking countries like Chile, Italy, and Spain (THE, 2019). Six Brazilian universities appeared among the fifteen best in Latin America in the QS Latin America University Rankings 2019, which classify around 400 higher education institutions in the region. Of these, three were state institutions from São Paulo, two federal, and one private (QS, 2019). The Brazilian newspaper, the Folha de S. Paulo, has been promoting an annual Folha University Ranking (RUF) since 2012. It focuses on two main products: the Ranking of

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

185

Universities, which classifies the 197 Brazilian universities, public and private, based on five indicators—research (42 percent), teaching (32 percent), market (18 percent), innovation (4 percent), and internationalization (4 percent); and the Ranking of Courses, which assesses the forty undergraduate courses with the largest number of entrant students in the country (according to the latest Higher Education Census available), based on two aspects—teaching and market (RUF, 2019). In the Ranking of Universities, the internationalization indicator takes two components into account—the average of international references by lecturer/researcher and the percentage of publications in partnership with foreign researchers in the Web of Science database (RUF, 2019). The university rankings and official evaluations do not take into account elements that are strongly associated with the higher education institutions in Brazil and Latin America, such as local social impact, inclusion and diversity, assessing their local, national, and international actions in a regional context (Righetti and Gamba, 2019).

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HE IN BRAZIL The Brazilian government’s longest-established international cooperation initiative is the Exchange Program for Undergraduate Students (PEC-G). It was created in 1965 and provides the opportunity for students from developing countries with which Brazil has cultural and/or educational cooperation agreements to take undergraduate courses at Brazilian higher education institutions. In 1981, the Exchange Program for Postgraduate Students (PEC-PG) was also created and offers study grants to students from developing countries in master’s and doctorate courses in Brazil. There are currently 62 participant countries in the PEC-G—from Africa (26), Latin America and the Caribbean (25), Asia (8), and Europe (3). The program has 109 participant Brazilian higher education institutions, and 291 undergraduate courses are offered. Over 9,000 students were selected for undergraduate courses from 2000 to 2019, 76 percent from Africa, and over 3,000 for postgraduate studies, 68 percent from Latin America and the Caribbean. The six members of the Portuguese-Speaking African Countries accounted for 85 percent of the places in the PEC-G (PEC, 2019). Even though the Brazilian government does not systematically follow up the trajectory of the returning students and their insertion into the labor market in their home countries, these programs have contributed to the education of highly qualified people who occupy positions of leadership and prominence in their own countries and who know Brazilian culture and maintain links with the country. The internationalization of higher education started to gain a more central and strategic dimension in the development of Brazilian higher education institutions in the 1980s. Besides the isolated, personal initiatives of teachers and researchers, carried out in an unsystematic way with their partners abroad, the higher education institutions began to establish structures and create administrative teams to manage international activities. These were undertaken in the form of International Offices, in line with each institution’s policy and organizational structure (Stallivieri, 2004).

BILATERAL COOPERATION PROGRAMS Until the launch of the Science without Borders program (SwB) in 2011, governmental actions aimed at the internationalization of Brazilian higher education were almost exclusively undertaken by the two national funding agencies created by the government in 1951. These were CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education

186

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Personnel, part of the Ministry of Education) and the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, part of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications). In 1953, CAPES sent its first fifty-four scholars to further their specialized education abroad. Along with the Funding Research Agencies (FAPs) in some states, the international cooperation programs were organized based on bilateral agreements between the Brazilian agencies and their counterparts abroad (Alves and Zicman, forthcoming). The CAPES-COFECUB program (French Committee for the Evaluation of Academic and Scientific Cooperation with Brazil) was started in October 1978 and is still the biggest CAPES cooperation program. It has been involved in around 900 projects in the four decades since then and supervised almost 4,500 doctorates across a broad spectrum of areas of study (CAPES, 2019). The PROBRAL program, developed jointly by the CAPES in Brazil and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) in Germany, which got underway in 1994, has already developed over 500 joint projects involving more than 8,000 researchers. Other initiatives besides these, such as the CAPES-MECD program for projects carried out in Spain, were important tools in strengthening university cooperation between Brazilian HEIs and those in other countries. Almost all these programs were geared to internationalization initiatives focused on postgraduate studies, with doctorate and post-doctorate levels favored, through financing grants for studying abroad. There were only a few programs, including the CAPES/FIPSE (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education), in cooperation with the United States, and UNIBRAL with Germany, which were driven by initiatives involving student mobility at the undergraduate level. Support for these came mainly from the initiatives of a few Brazilian higher education institutions through actions that were limited in scope and financing (CAPES, 2019). Until the Science without Borders program (SwB) got underway in 2011, the visibility and publicizing of Brazilian higher education at world level was limited to countries with the longest tradition of bilateral cooperation with Brazilian government agencies. These were led by the United States, France, and Germany, followed by Canada, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, to a lesser extent, besides a few other initiatives.

THE SCIENCE WITHOUT BORDERS PROGRAM As a result of Brazil’s higher profile on the international stage, the government set up the Science without Borders program (2011 to 2017). This was one of the largest scale nationwide scholarship programs in the world. The program sought to strengthen and expand the initiatives of science and technology, innovation and competitiveness through the international mobility of undergraduate and postgraduate students and researchers, mostly in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). It focused on the undergraduate, level which accounted for 79 percent of the student mobility. From 2012 the number of mobility grants for students and researchers going abroad grew significantly at unparalleled rates in such a short time. This was accompanied by the mobility of young talents and researchers visiting Brazil but on a much smaller scale. Although the overwhelming majority of the student mobility grants financed by the SwB program were still for institutions in Brazil’s traditional partner countries, including the United States (27,821) and Canada (7,311), in North America, and the UK (10,740), France (7,279), Germany (6,595), and Spain (5,025), in Europe, the doors opened by the program increased their range. A large number of students went to institutions in

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

187

geographical areas that had been little exploited until then, such as countries in Oceania and the East Asia (CSF, 2019). Brazil’s favorable economic outlook at that time allowed an investment of over US$ 4.5 billion in the SwB program. Around US$ 2.3 billion was in grants and US$ 2.2 billion in payments to foreign higher education institutions that received the Brazilian students from 2012 to 2016. Despite this, the program faced difficulties as the period when the greatest number of students was abroad coincided with the appreciation of the US dollar (SBPC, 2017). The SwB program promoted the mobility of 92,880 students and researchers in 54 countries on the five continents. These included 182 of the 200 best universities in the Shanghai Ranking (ARWU, 2017). However, 89.4 percent of these were concentrated in ten countries, seven of which were members of the European Union (Brasil, 2017). The number of Brazilian students quadrupled in some countries, while others, with which Brazil had had virtually no contact or exchange program until then, started receiving large numbers of Brazilian students (Alisios, 2017). The results achieved by the SwB program put Brazil on the map of international education as an important player on the global stage. Brazil increased the international mobility of students and researchers from an average of around 5,000 a year to over 40,000 in 2015 at the height of the program (Mcmanus and Nobre, 2016). It also strengthened new models of international cooperation in higher education by creating and establishing double degrees, cotutelles, research projects, and academic cooperation. The new fronts of cooperation opened by the SwB and the recognition of the academic quality of the Brazilian students created a strong interest among the program’s partner institutions. This had a positive outcome and stimulated potential initiatives and partnerships with Brazilian higher education institutions. A survey carried out by the agencies and universities of the European countries, which took part in the SwB to measure the impacts of the program in Europe showed that 35 percent of the respondents developed more in-depth partnerships with the Brazilian institutions through the program and 85 percent said they would like to establish more partnerships in Brazil (Alisios, 2017). Even in countries with a strong tradition of university cooperation with Brazil, such as France and the UK, the SwB program led to important changes in the profile of Brazilian students’ mobility in those countries in terms of numbers, level of study, area of knowledge, and the institutions involved. There was also an increase in the number of co-authored articles and impact factor (Universities UK, 2015). In the United States, the country that received the greatest number of students financed by the SwB program (almost 30 percent), the Brazilian students received a number of recognitions and awards (Mcmanus and Nobre, 2017). In Canada, the University of Toronto, the institution that received most SwB scholarships in the world (1,218), highlights the program’s outstanding role in increasing cooperation with Brazil (Taylor, Ledger, Falk, Baichwal, Anderson, and Morris, 2015). The visibility given to the SwB program in China, Russia, India, and South Africa and the mutual understanding of the growth potential of initiatives aimed at the internationalization of higher education among the BRICS led to the creation of the BRICS Network University in 2017. This was intended as a platform for university cooperation in education, science, and innovation. A similar situation also occurred in Oceania, with higher proportions in this case. Australia hosted more than 7,000 students in 50 different institutions and was the fifth

188

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

destination for SwB grants. Until the launch of the SwB program, Australia, like New Zealand, only had initiatives with Brazil related more to the promotion of offers and recruitment of Brazilian students to their higher education institutions. This situation was significantly altered with a large number of partnerships and cooperation agreements. Assuming that international mobility should not be an objective in its own right and without overlooking the failures and need to improve many aspects of the SwB program— such as the non-involvement of the Brazilian higher education institutions in the conception of the program, the slight contact with the institutions abroad, the difficulties in recognizing the periods of study abroad, and the lack of an assessment of the impact of the investment—the SwB’s results continue to echo internationally even after it ended (Freire and Spadaro, 2017; Marques, 2017). Despite the challenges faced in the management, financing, and evaluation of the program, the SwB allowed the country to promote its potential and win recognition for the quality of its higher education and the excellence of the research produced in Brazil. This can make a positive contribution to the internationalization of Brazilian higher education and the country’s scientific and technological development (Guimarães-Iosif, Mendonça De Oliveira, Pollom Zardo, and Veiga Dos Santos, 2016). The recognition of the quality of Brazilian higher education and the excellence of the research carried out in the country generated by the mobility promoted by the SwB program led renowned foreign institutions to start looking for Brazilian institutions as foreign strategic partners, with interests beyond international student mobility. The Science without Borders program also led to the establishment in 2012 of the national Language without Borders program (LwB). This was an additional languages teaching scheme led by the Ministry of Education to improve proficiency levels in English and other languages, training teachers from language departments in public federal and state higher education institutions. In a bid to promote initiatives on linguistic policy for the internationalization of Brazilian higher education and help higher education students learn foreign languages to have access to mobility programs and provide specialized training for foreign language teachers, the program paid for language courses and proficiency exams of over 800,000 students, faculties, and researchers between 2014 and 2018. Since the federal government announced in July 2019 the ending of public funds for the LwB program, the Brazilian higher education institutions have been discussing ways of ensuring the continuity of the actions, whether within the governmental framework or through their own organization and resources (OESP, 2019).

PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION Internationalization also features in the National Education Plan, approved in June 2014, which was applied to the whole education system in Brazil and establishes guidelines, goals, and strategies to be in place by 2024. Internationalization is referred to in passing in three goals and five strategies related to higher education. This is particularly so in the strategy, which aims to “consolidate and expand programs and initiatives to encourage student and faculty mobility in undergraduate and postgraduate courses at domestic and international level with the aim of enriching the Brazilian higher education” (PNE, 2014).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

189

In 2017, CAPES carried out a survey of Brazilian higher education institutions offering master’s and doctorates to find out their internationalization plans for the setting up of a new program. The survey asked questions on the internationalization strategies and goals for 2020 and received answers from 320 institutions (CAPES, 2017). The answers to the survey indicated that the internationalization process of the Brazilian higher education institutions is no longer at an early stage. Even with a strong national trend towards passive internationalization (outgoing student and faculty mobility) and low rates of attraction of international professionals, there is no doubt that the process is taking off sharply and attracting visiting professors is already appearing as a priority of the institutions’ internationalization process. When asked to describe their position based on three alternatives—low level of internationalization, medium level of internationalization, and high level of internationalization—most said low or medium (70.3 percent). Only eight regarded themselves as being highly internationalized. Among those with low or only medium internationalized levels, 52.5 percent had no internationalization plan within the Institutional Development Plan. In terms of global geographic distribution, the Brazilian higher education institutions mentioned agreements with different countries worldwide although the priorities remained North America and Europe. China, which it is the priority target of other countries in terms of student mobility, did not appear among the first ten countries referred to as priorities for agreements promoting internationalization. The PhD mobility and visiting professors appear as priorities. This points to a strategic change by the institutions as most of the individual grants from the SwB program were offered to undergraduate students (CAPES, 2017).

THE INSTITUTIONAL INTERNATIONALIZATION PROGRAM In 2017, the Brazilian government launched a new program for the internationalization of higher education called Capes/PrInt—the Institutional Internationalization Program. The intention is to make Brazilian higher education institutions more proactive in their internationalization processes, promote the construction and consolidation of strategic plans for the internationalization of higher education institutions, and increase the competitiveness and visibility of the country's scientific production. It is targeted on postgraduate programs in all areas of studies knowledge and focused on increasing the academic and social impact of Brazilian science (Capes-PrInt, 2017). Every higher education or research institution, taking into account its own levels and needs of internationalization, should identify its main skills and ways of enhancing them through cooperation agreements with foreign institutions. They would receive support to build cooperation networks, financing postgraduate activities and grants for studying abroad for researchers and students linked to the aims of each institution. The higher education institutions should decide on their domestic and international partners and present their proposals for internationalization. The program will mostly finance the mobility of Brazilian PhD students abroad, as well as faculty mobility, to and from Brazil. The actions proposed in each of the selected projects must contribute to the transformation of institutions in an international environment. Capes/PrInt has been designed to support the development and implementation of the Strategic Internationalization Plans created

190

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

by the selected HEIs. It will act to foster the internationalization of academic areas chosen by the awarded institutions. The selected Brazilian HEIs will manage all the processes (including the financial aspects). To participate, international HEIs must offer some cofunding and partnership with national institutions. The Capes-PrInt program got underway in 2019 and will last five years. It has an annual budget of US$ 80 million. It proposes a new model for internationalization of higher education in Brazil to increase the number of institutional partnerships and sustainable approaches for cooperation. Over 100 proposals were received, from which 36 HEIs were selected to participate in the program (31 from public and 5 from private institutions). This will lead to the construction, implementation, and consolidation of the institutions’ strategic plans in the areas of knowledge they prioritized, encouraging the formation of international research networks to improve the quality of academic production linked to postgraduate studies. One of the main contributions of the Capes-PrInt was the requirement that the applicant institutions draw up an Institutional Internationalization Plan. This would highlight priority subjects and areas of postgraduate study for the internationalization initiatives to be developed in line with the skills and priority areas laid down, encouraging the establishment of a culture of planning in the Brazilian higher education institutions (Capes-PrInt, 2017).

THE FUTURE-SE PROGRAM In July 2019, the Brazilian government launched the FUTURE-SE Program, which was drawn up by the Ministry of Education to expand the sources of financing for the federal universities and institutions and increase fundraising possibilities. The program is voluntary and the Ministry of Education believes it will allow the federal universities and institutes to increase their own revenues by promoting fundraising, giving them greater flexibility in spending and making them less dependent on the government budget (ABMES, 2019). The program has three pillars—Research, technological development and innovation; Entrepreneurism; and Internationalization. Its main aim in terms of internationalization is to promote the Brazilian higher education institutions abroad and improve Brazil’s standing in the international rankings. Its aims are: to create solid partnerships with foreign universities to encourage the continuous exchange flow of faculties and students, with the focus on applied research; to promote the recognition of foreign degrees by high-performing Brazilian public and private institutions; to provide mechanisms for facilitating the transfer of credits by institutions of excellence on online platforms; to promote foreign language courses for faculties and researchers through partnerships with private institutions for publication in foreign periodicals (replacing Languages without Borders); to encourage cooperation with partner singular institutions abroad and bring renowned Nobel Prize winners as visiting professors; and to provide the opportunity to offer grants in foreign institutions to high-performing students in academic studies and sports. The FUTURE-SE Program has been debated inside and outside the academic community and in the Brazilian Congress. It has been criticized mainly because it still contains few details and could bring risks to the institutions’ financial independence, particularly against a backdrop of cuts in grants and the contingency resources.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

191

THE BRAZILIAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION Founded in 1988, the Brazilian Association for International Education (FAUBAI, n.d.) is dedicated to improving the management of international cooperation and plays a fundamental role in the expansion of the internationalization of higher education process. It has over 240 members and represents the diversity of the Brazilian higher education system in terms of the kind and nature of the institutions present in all regions of the country. Along with the representation by kind of institution—public federal (38 percent), public state and municipal (16 percent), private communitarian (20 percent), and private (26 percent), the FAUBAI members are distributed in Brazil’s five regions: North (6 percent), Northeast (20.5 percent), Midwest (17.1 percent), Southeast (31.2 percent), and South (25.2 percent). The FAUBAI not only provides an efficient cooperation of government bodies and agencies involved in the internationalization of higher education, which is recognized in Brazil and abroad, but also develops capacity-building initiatives aimed at ensuring strategic planning and long-term sustainable actions (FAUBAI). Through the initiative of FAUBAI, and with the support of the Ministry of Education and the Brazilian Tourism Institute (Embratur), Brazilian higher education institutions have taken part in the Brazilian booth at the annual conferences of the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) and the European Association for International Education (EAIE). These are the two largest global events in the international education area and had around 10,000 and 6,000 participants, respectively. A partnership between the FAUBAI and Brazilian embassies abroad has been promoting University Cooperation Seminars and Study and Research in Brazil Fairs, which have been held since 2016 in Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Lima, Quito, and Bogotá. The aim is to promote Brazil as a destination for international students and researchers. Brazil’s importance in international higher education has grown considerably. It has been an important global player in the field of international education and has played a significant part in the Network of International Education Associations (NIEA). From 2016 to 2018, FAUBAI was responsible for the general coordination of this network bringing together the world’s largest international education associations, such as NAFSA (Association of International Educators), EAIE (European Association for International Education), IAU (International Association of Universities), and IIE (Institute of International Education), amongst others. Also through the auspices of the FAUBAI, Brazil played an active part in the Global Dialogue (in South Africa in 2014 and Mexico in 2017), a forum that brings together associations from around the world, including North and South America, Australia, Africa, and Europe. The aim of the event is to actively work to make internationalization more inclusive, more collaborative, equitable, and ethical, as stated in the Nelson Mandela Bay Global Dialogue Declaration on the Future of Internationalization of Higher Education (Nelson Mandela Bay Global Dialogue Declaration, 2014). This declaration was signed by twenty-three associations in 2014, in accordance with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (2015).

CHALLENGES FOR STUDENT MOBILITY The Brazilian tertiary education system is one of the least internationalized of all OECD and partner countries. Only 0.2 percent of tertiary students in Brazil are foreign, compared

192

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

with the total of 6 percent of mobile or foreign students across OECD countries. Between 2010 and 2017, the share of international or foreign students increased in nearly all OECD countries but remained stable in Brazil. In 2018, 45.6 percent of the foreign students at undergraduate courses in Brazil were from the American continent while 27.3 percent were from Africa (INEP, 2019). Moreover, only about 0.6 percent of Brazilian tertiary students is enrolled abroad, less than half the OECD total of 1.6 percent (OECD, 2019). The Brazilian higher education institutions have followed a global trend seen over the last twenty years and made international students more welcome in terms of opportunities— with courses and activities in foreign languages, short-term courses, and courses of Portuguese as a foreign language. They have also upgraded the welcoming infrastructure and activities, favoring the implementation and expansion of the “internationalization at home” and “internationalization of the curriculum.” The Guide to English as a Medium of Instruction in Brazilian Higher Education Institutions 2018–2019 provides, for the first time in Brazil, information about more than 1,200 programs, courses, and other activities offered in English and other foreign languages (Spanish, French, German, and Italian) as well as Portuguese for Foreigners— the eighth most spoken language in the world—by more than seventy public and private higher education institutions from across Brazil in all areas and levels of studies. The initiative aims to promote the country as a destination for international students and researchers and represents a big incentive for Brazilian institutions to become more internationally minded, attracting more international students to its campuses (British Council-FAUBAI, 2019). Overcoming the barriers of language, and enabling more academics to join international research and teaching networks form a fundamental part of the drive towards internationalization underway in Brazil. The data presented in the guide can be used by students, researchers, and institutions interested in studying and doing research in Brazil and reflect the sustained growth in activities offered in foreign languages to boost academic mobility to and from Brazil. Full information is hosted on a digital portal that serves as a search engine for students and institutions seeking a specific course or program by category, discipline, or region. A pilot study carried out in Brazil in 2017 by the Institute of International Education (IIE), with support from FAUBAI and CAPES—the IIE Survey of Higher Education and Student Mobility—aimed to expand the capacity of HEI and national-level agencies to gather and report mobility data, as part of the larger Project Atlas initiative (IIE, 2017). This is a joint global research platform, which collects timely, comprehensive, and universal institutional and national-level data on student mobility flows in twenty-five countries (Robles and Bhandari, 2017). The survey aims to map and assess the state of international student mobility and discover the level of internationalization of the Brazilian higher education institutions, provide subsidies to draw up an agenda for the internationalization of Brazilian higher education, and establish growth goals and frameworks for discussing and deciding public policies. It also intends bringing about the monitoring of the student mobility flow from and to Brazil compared with other countries. Brazil was chosen as a country partner for this project mainly due to its rising key role as a player in the field of international education. Brazil’s extensive work in recent years to internationalize its higher education includes its significant investments in projects that support student mobility such as the Science without Borders program. The 158 respondents (47 percent public and 53 percent private HEIs) reported some key findings regarding the

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

193

15,492 outbound Brazilian students and the 20,523 international students enrolled in degree and non-degree programs in Brazil: low outbound mobility (0.6 percent of Brazilian students study abroad, which is relatively low when compared with the outbound mobility ratios of other Latin American countries); greatest outbound student flow at the undergraduate level (77 percent) in STEM fields (29 percent); the United States (18 percent) and Portugal (13 percent) are top destinations for Brazilian students who study abroad; metropolitan regions attract international students (64 percent), greatest inbound flow (representing 0.8 percent inbound international students) at the undergraduate level (83 percent) with a majority classified as full-degree students (74 percent); more international students and partnerships overall at public federal (36 percent) and private not-for-profit HEI (30 percent); the majority of the institutions (64 percent) provide language policies as part of institutional strategies for internationalization and offer programs and courses taught in English, dual degree programs (63 percent), and international long-distance learning (58 percent); absence of financial resources for internationalization (47 percent) and not known if funding existed at the institution (31 percent) (Robles and Bhandari, 2017).

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Brazil’s political scenario has been marked, particularly over the last fifteen years, by many initiatives to bolster HE internationalization addressing the challenges of enhancing quality and professional management. The IAU 5th Global Survey, held recently by the International Association of Universities, shows that internationalization is an institutional priority in the Brazilian HEIs. Almost all (94 percent) of the 52 HEIs from Brazil which replied mention internationalization in their strategic plans, a percentage similar to the one at global level (91 percent) and higher than in Latin American and the Caribbean-LAC (84 percent) (Marinoni, 2019). A higher percentage (84 percent) of HEIs in Brazil have elaborated a policy/strategy for internationalization than at global level (72 percent) and in LAC (64 percent). Internationalization strategies at Brazilian HEIs are rather new, with almost half of institutions having elaborated a strategy less than one year ago (43 percent), mostly institution wide. Internationalization of the curriculum/internationalization at home is considered important by 84 percent of Brazilian HEIs (47 percent considering it important and 37 percent very important), similar to the results in LAC and at global level. The general institutional budget and external public funds are the two main sources for internationalization at Brazilian HEIs, as in LAC and at global level (Marinoni, 2019). Although advances have been made in statistical surveys and indicators on the internationalization of higher education processes, the lack of data to assess and measure the effectiveness of internationalization strategies has prevented more proactive governance in Brazilian higher education institutions. This data is also useful for institutional-level and national-level decision making. Financing also remains a challenge to ensure the effectiveness of national and institutional policies in the internationalization of Brazilian higher education. The risk remains of not overcoming the situation that is still common among Latin American HEIs, which promote internationalization in policy and discourse but lack or have inadequate financial resources to support it in practice (De Wit, Jaramillo, Gacel-Ávila, and Knight, 2005).

194

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

This is particularly the case due to the huge budgetary limits the institutions have faced in recent years. Another contributory factor has been contingency cuts in spending on universities and research institutions, which have particularly affected the federal funding agencies with a long track record of supporting international cooperation. The internationalization of HE in Brazil reflects its diversified context and is widely recognized as an important key measure of the institution’s success and competitiveness locally and globally. Given the diversity of the Brazilian higher education system, the national assessments and policies should take into consideration the specific conditions and the different missions of the higher education institutions, including the level of internationalization, at the risk of interpreting and taking the wrong decisions on the country's higher education (Righetti and Gamba, 2019). Despite political and economic shifts and uncertainties over the last few years, the advancements in the development of internationalization show that Brazil has continued to make strides towards further internationalizing its HE sector (Robles and Bhandari, 2017). Brazilian higher education institutions are expected to become more active and focused on proposals with a greater impact for the country. This will ensure an internationalization process that is more horizontal, inclusive, sustainable, strategic and longer term, promoting greater international cooperation and integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into Brazilian higher education.

REFERENCES ABMES (2019). Future-se—Universidades e Institutos Empreendedores. 2019. Available at: http://abmes.org.br/public/arquivos/apre_future_se09082019.pdf ALISIOS (2017). Documentos de trabalho do projeto ALISIOS . 2017. Available at: http:// www.alisios-project.eu Alves, F., and Zicman, R. (forthcoming). Divulgação da Educação Superior Brasileira no Mundo. ARWU (2017). Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2017. http://www.shanghairanking. com/ARWU2017.html CAPES (2017). Brasil. Coordenação do Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes). A internacionalização na Universidade Brasileira: resultados do questionário aplicado pela Capes. Editing and composition: Diretoria de Relações Internacionais Brasília, DF: CAPES Available at: https://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/ diversos/A-internacionalizacao-nas-IES-brasileiras.pdf CAPES (2019). Brasil. Coordenação do Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes). Geocapes: Sistema de Informações Georeferenciadas: banco de dados: Distribuição de discentes de Pós-Graduação no Brasil. Brasília, DF: CAPES . Available at: https://geocapes. capes.gov.br/geocapes/ British Council-FAUBAI Guide to English as a Medium of Instruction in Brazilian Higher Education Institutions (2019). Available at: http://faubai.org.br/guideemi/ Capes-PrInt (2017). Programa Institucional de Internacionalização, 41. Available at: http:// www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/editais/10112017-Edital-41-2017Internacionalizacao-PrInt-2.pdf Clarivates Analytics (2018). Research in Brazil: a report for CAPES by Clarivate Analytics. Available at: https://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/diversos/17012018-CAPESInCitesReport-Final.pdf CSF (2019). Brasil. Painel de controle dos bolsistas do programa Ciência sem Fronteiras. CSF. Available at http://www.cienciasemfronteiras.gov.br/web/csf/painel-de-controle

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

195

De Wit, H., Jaramillo, I., Gacel-Ávila, J., and Knight, J. (eds) (2005). Higher education in Latin America—the international dimension (English). Directions in development. Washington, DC : World Bank. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/857841468091483395/Higher-education-in-Latin-America-the-international-dimension FAUBAI (n.d.). Brazilian Association for International Education. Available at: http://faubai. org.br/en-us/ FIES (2019). Brasil. Ministério da Educação (MEC). Fundo de Financiamento Estudantil— FIES . Available at: http://sisfiesportal.mec.gov.br/ Freire Junior, J.C., and Spadaro, P. (2017). Beyond Science Without Borders: Brazil Retools Its Internationalization Strategy. 18 September 2017. Available at https://wenr.wes. org/2017/09/beyond-science-without-borders-brazil-retools-its-internationalization-scheme Guimarães-Iosif, R., Mendonça de Oliveira, L., Pollom Zardo, S., and Veiga Dos Santos, A. (2016). Programa Ciência sem Fronteiras: a tradução da política de internacionalização brasileira no Canadá. Interfaces Brasil/Canadá. Canoas, 16(1): 16–39. INEP (2019). Brasil. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (INEP). Censo da Educação Superior 2018: Notas Estatísticas. Ministério da Educação, Brasília, 2019. Available at: http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_superior/censo_superior/ documentos/2019/censo_da_educacao_superior_2018-notas_estatisticas.pdf Lei de Cotas (2012). Brasil. Lei 12.711/2012. Presidência da República. Available at: http:// www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL_03/_Ato2011-2014/2012/Lei/L12711.htm Marinoni, G. (2019). IAU 5th Global Survey—Internationalization of Higher Education: An Evolving Landscape, Locally and Globally. DUZ Medienhaus and IAU, 2019. Available at: https://www.iau-aiu.net/Internationalization?lang=en Marques, F. (2017). Experiência Encerrada. Revista Pesquisa Fapesp. June 2017. Available at: http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/020_financiamento_256-1.pdf Mcmanus, C., and Nobre, C. (2016). Internacionalização e inclusão social no Ciência sem Fronteiras. Valor Econômico, June 21, 2016. Nelson Mandela Bay Global Dialogue Declaration on the Future of Internationalization of Higher Education, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, January (2014). Available at: http://www. aieaworld.org/assets/docs/Press_Releases/nelson_declaration.pdf OECD (2019). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. September 2019. Available at: http:// download.inep.gov.br/acoes_internacionais/eag/documentos/2019/Country_Note_ EAG_2019_Brasil.pdf OESP (2019). Idiomas sem Fronteiras será encerrado pelo MEC. O Estado de S. Paulo—OESP. July 19, 2019. Available at: https://educacao.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,idiomas-semfronteiras-sera-encerrado-pelo-mec,70002927793 PNE (2014). Brasil. Lei No 13.005/2014—Plano Nacional de Educação. Available at: http:// pne.mec.gov.br/18-planos-subnacionais-de-educacao/543-plano-nacional-de-educacaolei-n-13-005-2014 Prouni (2019). Brasil. Ministério da Educação (MEC). Programa Universidade para Todos— Prouni. Available at: http://prouniportal.mec.gov.br/o-programa PEC (2019). Brasil. Programa de Estudantes-Convênio. Ministério de Relações Exteriores. Available at: http://www.dce.mre.gov.br/PEC/PECG.php and http://www.dce.mre.gov.br/ PEC/PECPG.php QS (2019). QS Latin America Ranking 2019. Available at: https://www.topuniversities.com/ university-rankings/latin-american-university-rankings/2019 Righetti, S., and Gamba, E. (2019). Categorização do Ensino Superior no Brasil: Diversidade e Complementaridade. Repensar a Universidade II: Impactos para a Sociedade. Jacques

196

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Marcovitch (org.). Com-Arte and Fapesp. 2019. Available at: http://www.livrosabertos.sibi. usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/download/411/362/1459-1?inline=1 Robles, C. and Bhandari, R. (2019). Higher Education and Student Mobility. A Capacity Building Pilot Study in Brazil. IIE . September 2019. Available at: https://www.capes.gov.br/ images/stories/download/diversos/23112017-High-Education-and-Student-Mobility-BrazilPilot-2.pdf RUF (2019). Ranking Universitário Folha 2019. Available at: https://ruf.folha.uol.com.br/2019/ ranking-de-universidades/principal/ SBPC (2017). Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência. O fim do Ciência sem Fronteiras depois de R$ 13 bilhões investidos em bolsas no exterior. June 30, 2017. Available at: http://portal.sbpcnet.org.br/ noticias/o-fim-do-ciencia-sem-fronteiras-depois-de-r-13-bilhoes-investidos-em-bolsas-noexterior/ SJR (2018). Scimago Journal and Country Rank. Available at: https://www.scimagojr.com/ countryrank.php?year=2018 Stallivieri, L. (2004). Documento marco de lançamento dos resultados do planejamento estratégico aplicado ao Fórum das Assessorias das Universidades Brasileiras para Assuntos Internacionais. April, 2004. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/304216362 Taylor, A., Ledger, B., Falk, D., Baichwal, A., Anderson, S., and Morris, C. (2015). U of T’s World Wide Web. Retrieved May 20, 2015. UofT Magazine. Available at: http://www. magazine.utoronto.ca/ feature/u-of-t-s-world-wide-web-globalcollaboration-university-of-toronto/ THE (2019). Times Higher Education World University Ranking 2019. Available at: https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking Universities UK (2015). Ciência sem Fronteiras Reino Unido: Impact of the Brazilian Scientific Mobility Programme 2012–2015, August 1, 2015. Available at: http://www.universitiesuk. ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/International/swb-brochure-2012-15.pdf VEJA (2011). Pela primeira vez, USP está entre as 200 melhores do mundo. VEJA. 5 out 2011. Available at: https://veja.abril.com.br/educacao/pela-primeira-vez-usp-esta-entre-as-200melhores-do-mundo/

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean ANNETTE INSANALLY AND LUZ INMACULADA MADERA

INTRODUCTION The Caribbean is one of the most diverse, pluri-racial, multi-cultural, and vulnerable areas on the planet. Pursuing the sustainable development goals—comprehensively reflected in the 2030 Agenda (United Nations, n.d.)—and addressing new Caribbean realities are major challenges for its small countries (ECLAC, 2017). Global trends and dynamics need Caribbean citizens who can understand and engage with the environmental, social, economic, political, and other challenges of today and tomorrow, and university graduates who possess critical thinking skills and global competencies. In this scenario, the internationalization of higher education becomes a strategic element to enhance the local and regional competences needed in order to respond to those challenges and the internationalized performance of educational systems, institutions, and actors (GacelÁvila and Rodríguez, 2019). As institutions identify how best to improve their international education to address the global realities that Caribbean students and citizens confront in this century, they must also globalize their understanding and abilities to reach across borders and boundaries to share knowledge to enhance cooperation and well-being (Jibeen and Asad Khan, 2015).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The existing higher education internationalization theories and approaches developed in the global North have tended to be the primary references for the sector worldwide. However, internationalization strategies, mechanisms, and practice will reflect the differences in circumstances, philosophy, and ideology of the regions internalized in the sector (Mihut, Altbach, and de Wit, 2017). The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the particularities of the Caribbean, identify common challenges faced by its higher education sector, and give an overview of internationalization strategies and examples of impactful results. The three principal data sources used are a bibliographic review of texts and reports, a survey, and an opinion poll, in order to obtain primary information from the relevant academic institutions and actors. The survey instrument utilized to capture current 197

198

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

information on internationalization practices in the Caribbean higher education sector was a questionnaire (in English), modelled on that used by the Regional Observatory of Internationalization and Networking in Tertiary Education (OBIRET) (Gacel-Ávila and Rodríguez, 2019). The views of members of the region’s academic leadership, management staff, researchers, professors, and students (hereinafter regional academic experts and actors) were also canvassed.

CARIBBEAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION: SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS The diversity of Caribbean countries, with their combined natural resources, human talent, diverse political systems and funding access, cultural affinities and diversities, multiple languages, and different educational models, accords the region a significant potential for regional development. Yet, its regional economy, primarily tourism- and agriculture-based, is affected annually by climatic phenomena that undermine its sustainable development, especially in the smaller islands (Lam, Arenas, Brito, and Liu, 2014). Increasingly, the Higher Education sector is being challenged by governments to be more competitive and responsible, build strong public–private partnerships, foster jobs and opportunities, and master technology and innovation to advance the sustainable development of their nations. The sector is exhorted to educate to mitigate the negative impact on the human and economic resources of countries brought about by their vulnerabilities to natural disasters, food insecurity, excessive crime and threatened security, high energy costs, and inadequate social infrastructure, all of which undermine human development potential.

CARIBBEAN CONTEXT AND REALITY With a global population of 42 million inhabitants (89.6 percent concentrated in the Greater Antilles), the Human Development Index of Caribbean countries ranges between high and medium, with few exceptions. There are large differences in terms of the regional economy: Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic represent 76 percent of regional gross domestic product (GDP); Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Bahamas, Suriname, Barbados, and Guyana 21 percent and the rest of the territories only 3 percent (MEPyD, 2016). Over the past two decades, despite the improvements shown by Caribbean countries’ human development indicators, poverty and its social sequels continue to be major challenges, with solutions requiring the joint effort of civil society, governments, productive sectors, NGOs, and academia. Even in those Caribbean countries with better macroeconomic performance, until more recently—Barbados, Bahamas, Dominican Republic; and good social indicators—Cuba, social and economic transformation continue to be urgent (Rampersad, 2017). The political organization and government systems also reveal the heterogeneity of the region that integrates thirteen sovereign states and nineteen overseas departments and dependencies: Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, the Commonwealth Caribbean (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago and also continental Suriname, Belize and Guyana), the French Overseas Departments, the Dutch Antilles, and

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

199

remaining British and American dependencies. Given the small scale of Caribbean societies and economies, there is no doubt that the combination of the parts would be advantageous for sustainable development. The reality is that, despite multiple initiatives and efforts, to date regional integration has been elusive (MEPyD, 2016). Several regional organizations have been created to promote the regional integration agenda but, in practice, they constitute a network of overlapping interests, without greater results in terms of integration: The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Forum of the Caribbean Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (CARIFORUM), the Association of Caribbean States (ACS), the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), among others. Despite the difficulties in achieving Caribbean integration, for multiple reasons, higher education, global and regional societies and institutions find ways to develop global understanding, solidarity, and acceptance through internationalization (Mihut et al., 2017).

HIGHER EDUCATION, INTERNATIONALIZATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Global and Regional Dynamics Over the past decade, Caribbean higher education institutions (HEIs) have sought to develop their capacity, resilience, and competitiveness to ably respond to the developmental needs of the governments and people that they serve, and to position their institutions as an attractive partner and higher education destination. Yet the scenario is still one where the overall participation rates in higher education remain low, the education offer is limited, quality assurance in the sector is highly variable, and there are few formal accreditation systems (Botero, 2017). Some governments and institutional heads have been slow to develop policies to create accessible quality higher education systems, to promote global human, professional competences, and facilitate the degree of regional cross-fertilization that is necessary to participate successfully in a complex planetary context. Regional academic experts and actors attribute the shortfalls in integrated action for sustainable development to the inconsistency of action as a regional community and see internationalization as a key factor for the promotion of regional integration and development, since no university can fully develop and transform society without international cooperation. Universities are in an optimal position to interact in multiple contexts and these must be aligned with the global dynamics to maintain their relevance to the communities they serve. Trust, recognition of degrees and programs, and joint action among institutions and actors are necessary elements for a collaborative academic culture that will unlock the human potential of the Caribbean and enhance action for the sustainable development of its countries. Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, Vice Chancellor of The University of the West Indies, emphasizes that a nation’s human capital endowment— the knowledge and skills embodied in individuals that enable them to create economic value—can be a more important determinant of long-term success than virtually any other resource (Beckles, 2017). Current dynamics in higher education require HEIs to develop strategic initiatives and innovative programs that will increase the attractiveness of their offer both at home and abroad. The challenge of achieving this is heightened by the current reality of diminishing state funding and the persistent lure of HEIs to attract and retain the talent available in

200

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

developing countries in the Caribbean (Beckles, Perry, and Whitely, 2005). The responsibility of the state is to invest adequately in education and training: “Investment in education is important, enabling the development of each person’s full potential and consequently creating a competitive workforce. Education is therefore a social indicator of a country’s economic development and the stock and quality of its human capital” (Vision 2030, Jamaica, 2009: 4).

Challenges and Opportunities for Internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean In a region historically fragmented by colonial cultures, a consistently regional integrated approach, based on complementarity of knowledge, joint developmental research, and combined scientific and technological advances would be transformational for the sector. The mobilization of skills through internationalization strategies and mechanisms can help Caribbean peoples optimize the capacity to work with others, to define a common future, benefit from cultural diversity, and prepare citizens for effective participation in a globalized environment. Intra- and extra-regional mobility, language learning, diversity studies, Caribbean interculturality, academic networks, and partnerships become relevant (Madera, 2011). The UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC) continues to support the internationalization efforts of Caribbean HEIs. In June 2018, its 3rd General Conference on Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean, CRES 2018, issued a Declaration followed by an Action Plan 2018– 2028, intended to assist governments, HEIs, academic networks, and international agencies in this endeavor. The documents address the pillars of internationalization including the recognition of studies and degrees to promote academic mobility, appropriate legislation, sound accreditation systems, enabling policies on science and technology and alignment of curriculum content with social demands and the needs of the labor market. Potentially, they serve as a roadmap and include indicators for performance measurement. The CRES 2018 Action Plan encourages governments to adopt the legal regulations included in the New Convention for the Recognition of Studies, Degrees and Diplomas, within a progressive internationalization framework by 2021 (IESALC, 2018a,b). While the implementation of the 2030 Agenda rests on governments, the responsibility for achieving the goals rests with all sectors. Caribbean universities, recognizing the importance of partnering for the region’s resilience, must invest in intercultural education and multilingual programs, exchange of teachers, students and non-academic staff, and an internationalized curriculum. The barriers that prevent international exchanges in the region must be eliminated. This requires effort from the universities (academic flexibility), governments (visa, immigration status, recognition of degrees), and the private sector (international internships). There are risks and challenges associated with these aspirations, specifically the fundamental mismatch that can occur between international aspirations, local needs, and institutional resources; the very real potential for poor planning and execution of misguided internationalization strategies; the risk of further cleavages between wealthier and poorer individuals, institutions, and countries, all approaching internationalization on an inherently uneven playing field; and new opportunities for corruption and exploitation. —Rumbley, Altbach, and Reisberg, 2012: 23

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

201

Universities in the Global North, and to some extent in the South, have been tempted to make the commercialization of education one of the primary components of their internationalization thrust, in search of alternative sources of funding, and to boost their ranking. The question is how can HEIs in the Caribbean guarantee sustained international good practice, generate viable solutions, cultivate beneficial partnerships, develop the capacity for policy change, and drive sectoral integration for optimal management of national and combined regional resources, without the full support of their governments and societies who must share these responsibilities? What opportunities does internationalization provide to Caribbean HEIs to develop the human capacity that can effectively manage the energy sector, for example, to enhance production and environmental protection, and develop the vast resources of the Caribbean Sea for enhanced Energy and Food Security? Consulted regional academic experts and actors are convinced that an internationalized higher education system is the strategy that can best serve to enhance the local and regional competences that will contribute to responding to these needs. This will require urgent action in the area of mutual recognition of qualifications and common accreditation systems to enable labor mobility both regionally and globally and student mobility across the multilingual Caribbean.

THE STATUS OF CARIBBEAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION: SURVEY FINDINGS The responses of Caribbean universities provide useful information to determine the scope of their internationalization practices. The organization of the information received follows the format used in the 1st Regional Survey of Internationalization Trends in Tertiary Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (from now on OBIRET 2016 LAC survey). A total of twenty-eight HEIs (sixteen public and twelve private non-profit) from the Spanish-, French-, English- and Dutch- speaking Caribbean responded to the questionnaire. Table 14.1 shows the HEIs participating in the survey, country and type of institution, followed by the main findings of the survey.

Survey Main Results Education Offer of Participating Universities Educational level: 39.29 percent of the participant institutions offer University upper technical level (AA/AS); 92.86 percent offer bachelor’s degrees (BA/BSc, first cycle); 92.86 percent offer master’s degrees (second cycle), and 64.29 percent offer PhDs (third cycle). Campus size: based on the number of students, the institutions surveyed correspond to HEIs of small size (fewer than 5,000 students) and medium size (from 5,000 to 13,000 students), except for the State University of Haiti (UEH), which has a total of 36,500 students, and the regional University of the West Indies with a total of 50,000 students.

Benefits, Risks, and Obstacles to Internationalization in the Caribbean The main benefits of internationalization reported by HEIs consulted are: “Strengthened research and knowledge production,” “Improved academic quality of educational programs.” For the HEIs of the Caribbean, the internationalization of higher education

202

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 14.1 Participants HEIs, country, and type Institution Country – Type Universidad Agraria de La Habana “Fructuoso Rodríguez Pérez”, UNAH Universidad de Camagüey “Ignacio Agramonte Loynaz”, UC Universidad Central “Marta Abreu” de Las Villas, UCVL Universidad de Ciego de Ávila “Máximo Gómez Báez”, Cuba UNICA 7 public HEIs Universidad de las Ciencias de la Cultura Física y el Deporte “Manuel Fajardo”, UCCFD Universidad de Cienfuegos “Carlos Rafael Rodríguez”, UCF Universidad de Holguín “Oscar Lucero Moya”, UHo University of Curaçao Dr. Moises da Costa Gomez, UoC

Curaçao, Dutch Antilles – 1 public HEI

Barna Management School Instituto Superior de Formación Docente Salomé Ureña, ISFODOSU Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo – INTEC Dominican Republic Universidad APEC, UNAPEC 7 private non-profit HEIs Universidad Central del Este, UCE 1 public HEI (ISFODOSU) Universidad Dominicana O&M Universidad Iberoamericana, UNIBE Universidad Nacional Pedro Henríquez Ureña, UNPHU Université des Antilles, UA

Campuses in Guadeloupe and Martinique, public HEIs

The University of Guyana, UG Guyana – 1 public HEI Ecole Supérieure d’Infotronique d’Haïti, ESIH Haiti Université d’État d’Haïti, UEH 3 private non-profit HEIs Université INUFOCAD 1 public HEI (UEH) Université Quisqueya, uniQ University of Technology, UTech Jamaica – 1 public HEI Puerto Rico Universidad Interamericana, INTER – Recinto Metropolitano 1 public HEI (UPR) University of Puerto Rico, UPR 1 private non-profit HEI (INTER) Anton De Kom Universiteit van Suriname, AdeKUS Suriname – 1 public HEI University of Trinidad and Tobago, UTT

Trinidad & Tobago – 1 public HEI

Regional public HEI providing education services The University of the West Indies, UWI to 17 Countries in the Anglophone Caribbean Source: Survey results.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

203

constitutes a key factor for the institutional, academic, and scientific development of the region. The main risks of internationalization are, in order of importance: “Unequal benefits between partners,” “Overemphasis on internationalization at the expense of other institutional priorities,” and “Excessive competition among institutions.” Of the main risks of internationalization for the country, “Brain drain” was ranked first in the region, followed by “The commercialization of education,” and “Increase in inequality among HEIs of the same country.” The risks prioritized are linked to socio-economic reality, scientific and academic fragility, inequality factors, and the limited financial resources that characterize the region. The main external factors that encourage internationalization are: “Search for alternative resources of funding,” “Availability of international cooperation.” “Strengthening the international visibility of the University” was mentioned as an external factor. The financial aspects and securing resources are highlighted as critical priorities in the international academic dynamics of the region. The main internal obstacles to internationalization were, in order of importance, “Insufficient funding,” “Limited institutional leadership/vision,” “Insufficient information on international opportunities,” “Lack of strategy or plan to guide the process,” and “Lack of language proficiency on the part of students and academic.” Prioritized internal obstacles reveal the need to strengthen the financing, focus, and management of internationalization in HEIs in the region. The main external obstacles to internationalization included, in order of importance, “Limited public funding for internationalization,” “Lack of national policies and programs to support internationalization,” “Visa restrictions imposed by other countries on students and academics,” “Difficulties in recognizing studies and transferring academic credits,” and “Difficulty in finding foreign partners.” As was reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey, in comparison with the global average, the Caribbean gives more weight to the lack of public funding and the lack of national policies and programs to support internationalization. Another obstacle reported is the United States blockade.

Organizational Policies, Structures, and Strategies In terms of organizational structure, strategic planning, internationalization policies and strategies, 78.57 percent indicated that internationalization is integral to the mission statement and/or strategic plan/institutional development plan and 21.43 percent reported that it is mentioned. No institution said the mission of the institution does not address the international dimension. The level of importance the authorities give to internationalization was rated to be 68 percent “Very important,” and 25 percent “Important.” Of participating HEIs, 68 percent reported having an institutional plan for internationalization in place and with specific objectives and goals; 25 percent reported that such a plan is in the development stages, while 7.14 percent reported not having such a plan. At the level of academic units, only 18 percent of the HEIs reported having a plan for internationalization and 46 percent indicated that some academic areas have their internationalization plan. In the Caribbean, the favorable percentages are higher than those reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. Regarding the institutional structures and policies to communicate and disseminate the internationalization process, 61 percent of the participating HEIs reported having a website exclusively for the internationalization dimension. Of these, 39 percent do not

204

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

have a website, only four non-Anglophone institutions indicated having a website available in the local language and in English, and no Anglophone institution reported having a website available in another language. In relation to having an internationalization office (IO), 89 percent answered affirmatively and 76 percent of IOs report having a staff of between one and five persons; 50 percent are on the highest tier within the institutional hierarchy compared with 31 percent reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey, and 43 percent are on the second tier. In 46 percent of the cases, the office responsible for internationalization is “always” considered when proposing, programming, and developing initiatives, projects, and international actions, 39 percent “Usually,” and 14 percent indicated that it is “Sometimes” or “Rarely” considered. With regard to financial resources, 64 percent indicated that they had a budget for internationalization activities at the institutional level, but only 37 percent of HEIs reported having the resources to carry out activities and just 7 percent said they had a budget assigned to the IOs. The HEIs’ main sources for internationalization activities are the institutional budget, funding from international or private organizations, and external public funding. Other sources of resources are international funding projects, international grants, partnerships with foreign institutions, national public funds, sponsorship and tuition, cooperation projects, and student funding. The participation in international calls for funds reported: frequently 29 percent, sometimes 39 percent, rarely 18 percent, and never 14 percent. The most noted source of cooperation resources are European funds with local programs, e.g., Erasmus, others. In 83 percent of cases, cooperation funds are accessed through inter-institutional networks. HEI participation in international academic cooperation associations membership is as follows: 43 percent Universities Caribbean (UC), formerly UNICA; 36 percent Inter-American Higher Education Organization (OUI/IOHE); 32 percent Union of Universities of Latin America and the Caribbean (UDUAL); 28 percent International Association of Universities (IAU); 25 percent Association of International Educators (NAFSA). Other associations mentioned were the Ibero-American Postgraduate University Association (AUIP), European Association for International Education (EAIE), Association of Caribbean University, Research and Institutional Libraries (ACURIL), l’ Agence Universitaire Francophonie (AUF), and the Conference of Rectors, Presidents and Directors of Caribbean Universities (CORPUCA), among others. Most of the HEIs do not participate in any international education events (31 percent). Only 35 percent attend the fair organized by the Association of International Educators, NAFSA (without stand), followed by the European Association for International Education (EAIE) (15 percent without stand). In terms of quality assurance, evaluation, and monitoring systems for their internationalization process, 46 percent reported having one and 31 percent reported that the system is in its development stages. Regarding having a program to evaluate the results of faculty mobility, 42 percent reported that such a system is in the development stages, while only 23 percent reported having one. With regard to a program to evaluate the results of student mobility, 35 percent reported in the affirmative and 31 percent have it in progress. Public universities have greater advances in that aspect than private universities.

Program Structures The main internationalization strategies and activities are, in order of importance: academic mobility (96 percent), student mobility (93 percent), participation in cooperation

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

205

projects (86 percent), management and funding of international research projects (82 percent), internationalization of the curriculum and development of joint or dual programs (68 percent). A low level of involvement is observed with the recruitment of international students and offering their own programs to international students on campus, abroad, or online.

Academic Collaboration Agreements The top priority regions of the world for collaboration with the Caribbean are, in order of importance: Latin America and Western Europe, followed by North America and Asia. For LAC, it is the Caribbean, Andean Zone, and Southern Cone. The main regions and countries for collaboration agreements reported by participating institutions are, in decreasing order: Latin America (Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Panama); Caribbean (Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe-Martinique, Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Puerto Rico, Suriname, Aruba, Barbados, Belize, French Guyana, and St. Maarten); Western Europe (Spain) and North America. The regions with which there are the fewest academic collaboration agreements are Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania. The priority intra-regional link and with Latin America is noteworthy.

Internationalization of Curriculum Most of the institutions (59 percent) report having a policy for the internationalization of curriculum compared with 51 percent not having a policy as indicated in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. The most frequent activities are: “Outgoing student mobility” (91 percent), “Inbound student mobility” (76 percent), and “Courses taught in collaboration with foreign institutions” (76 percent), followed by “Programs/courses taught in a language other than the local one” (62 percent), and “Co-advisories” (57 percent). Of the participating institutions, 69 percent do not offer massive open online courses (MOOC). Other activities mentioned are short-term courses on specific topics taught by foreign professors, virtual teaching mobility, and participation in networks. The main obstacles to the internationalization of curriculum reported are: “Indifference or lack of information of academic personnel” (50 percent), “Administrative or bureaucratic difficulties,” such as the transfer of credits, differences between academic calendars (36 percent), “Lack of institutional policies” (31 percent), and “Inflexible institutional regulations” (14 percent). Other obstacles proposed are “Deficiencies in curriculum design,” “Absence of culture and lack of resources for internationalization of the curriculum,” “Lack of empowerment by academics and managers,” “Language barriers,” “Recognition of academic credits,” and “No funding for curriculum development and accreditation of programs.”

Joint and/or Dual-degree Programs The offering of joint and/or dual degree programs in collaboration with foreign institutions was reported by 59 percent of the HEIs vs. 39 percent reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. Most of the joint degree and dual-degree programs are offered at the undergraduate level. The countries that collaborate the most with the Caribbean in joint degree and dual-degree programs are, in order of importance, Spain, the United States, France, Canada, Belgium, and China. In Latin America, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama,

206

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and intra-regional Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Haiti. The greatest number of jointdegree and dual degree programs at the Caribbean are offered in the fields of Engineering and Technology (77 percent HEIs), Humanities (50 percent), and Social Science (46 percent). The field of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences has the fewest collaborative programs in the region, in both modalities.

Institutional Language Teaching Policy Proficiency in a foreign language(s) is reported by 32 percent as an admission and/or graduation requirement for all their academic programs, while 36 percent report that this applies only to some of their academic programs. Having a specialized center, which is an independent entity, to teach the local language to foreign students is reported by 68 percent of the institutions vs. 57 percent reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey.

Internationalization of Research Regarding academic research activities, 77.78 percent of participant institutions stated that their academics engage in academic/research activities abroad; 66.67 percent have a program or mechanisms to promote the publication of scientific articles in indexed journals; 59.26 percent have a scholarship or economic support program for faculty mobility; 51.85 percent consider international experience for the hiring, promotion, and contract renewal of academic personnel and only 37 percent have an institutional program of funding for international research projects. The main obstacles to the internationalization of research reported were, in order of importance, “Lack of funding,” “Little experience and knowledge, or low international profile of academics,” followed by “Administrative or bureaucratic difficulties” and “Lack of language proficiency on the part of academics.” Other obstacles reported are: “Political instability,” “USA blockade,” “Little institutional incentive.” On comparing these results with those of the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey, it would seem that the Caribbean needs to develop mechanisms to promote the internationalization of teaching and funding to support researchers.

Academic Mobility The number of hosted foreign academics in 2018–2019 for 67 percent of the participating HEIs was between zero and 25 individuals; 16.5 percent received between 26 and 50 and two Cuban HEIs reported receiving between 195 and more of 300 academics (16.5 percent). The main countries outside Latin America and the Caribbean for inbound and outbound academic mobility are, in order of importance: Spain (13 mentions), United States (13), Canada (10), France (6), Belgium (3), Germany (3), the Netherlands (3), and the United Kingdom (3). It is of interest to note that countries such as Angola, India, Korea, and Nigeria featured among the five main countries of inbound mobility in the region. Regarding Latin America, the main countries reported for academic mobility are: Mexico (14 mentions), Colombia (12), Ecuador (6), Argentina (1), Brazil (1), Chile (1), and Venezuela (1). For intraregional academic mobility, the countries reported as a priority target for other Caribbean countries are: Cuba (4 mentions), Dominican Republic (4), Jamaica (4), Guadeloupe-Martinique (2), Barbados (1), French Guyana (1), Guyana (1), Haiti (1),

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

207

Puerto Rico (1), Suriname (1), and Trinidad and Tobago (1). This data indicates significant intra-regional academic mobility.

Inbound and Outbound Student Mobility Main modalities of international mobility among participant intuitions, in decreasing order: research stays (81 percent), academic trips (77 percent), taking courses (73 percent), professional internships (65 percent), graduate study scholarships (50 percent), language courses (42 percent), and medical rotations (27 percent). Other modalities mentioned are semester abroad and dual-degree programs. In the Caribbean, most exchange students, both inbound and outbound, are enrolled in undergraduate programs, coinciding with results reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. One exception is the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus (UPRRP), which reported a very high flow of outbound mobility for doctoral students. University upper technical programs represent 16 percent, bachelor’s degree 36 percent, master’s degree 14 percent, and PhD 32 percent (UPRRP mobility students represent 55 percent of mobility flows of doctoral students). A comparison of the numbers of outbound and inbound mobility reported by the HEIs shows that the Caribbean sends more students than it receives, similar to the flows reported in the OBIRET 2016 general survey. Inbound mobility students come from, in order of importance: Western Europe (17.48 percent), Latin American and the Caribbean (16.56 percent), North America (15.65 percent), followed by Asia (11.96 percent), Eastern Europe (9.20 percent), and Africa (5.52 percent). Inbound mobility from the Middle East and Oceania seems to be very low in the Caribbean. Outbound mobility students go, in order of importance, to Latin America and the Caribbean (24.69 percent), North America (22.22 percent), Western Europe (19.70 percent), followed by Asia (11.11 percent), Eastern Europe (9.87 percent), and own country (4.90 percent). Outbound mobility to Africa, the Middle East, and Oceania seems to be very low in the Caribbean. Training for mobility: 54 percent of the HEIs surveyed report preparing some of the students for an international academic experience and only 39 percent indicated preparing all their students for international exchange. The absence of prior preparation can reduce the success of the international and intercultural experience of the students. The main obstacle to student mobility falls under the categories of “Students’ family and/or job commitments,” “Limited number of agreements and spaces,” and “Lack of language proficiency among students.” Other obstacles mentioned are, in order of importance: lack of funding and scholarships, cost of living abroad, visa process, too rigid curriculum, lack of assessment of mobility results. Comparing these results with those of the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey, the Caribbean as a region shows greater competences in the management of foreign languages but experiences greater difficulties for mobility due to family and labor reasons, and the lack of inter-institutional agreements that support exchange. The financial factor was highlighted as a major obstacle for mobility in the region. In terms of economic support, 53.85 percent of the participating institutions do not offer their students any type of support for international mobility compared with the 38 percent reported in the 2019 LAC survey, while 34.62 percent of the institutions indicated that they provide partial support. Only 11.54 percent provide scholarships or financial support or both. Regarding virtual mobility, 74 percent of the HEIs reported that they do

208

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

not offer modality of virtual mobility for students, a lower percentage than reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey (82 percent).

Liaison Offices and Campuses Abroad Seven, or 26 percent, of the participating institutions report having a liaison office abroad. Three of the participating institutions report having a campus abroad (11.11 percent), one in Puerto Rico, one in Haiti, and one in the Dominican Republic—all private institutions. Four, 15 percent, are offering courses that do not lead to a degree (continuing education, certification courses, etc.); five, 19 percent, offer complete academic programs, and three, 112 percent, offer both. The UWI has centers in seventeen Caribbean countries and one center in each continent, except for Europe and Australia.

Global University Rankings Only twenty-five of the Caribbean participating HEIs answered this question. The highest score was 36 percent, corresponding to “They are not an accurate description of the regional reality” and 28 percent consider these rankings to be “An important factor for institutional decision-making,” compared with the 38 percent reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. The same percentage corresponds to “Unknown” while “They are of no interest to our institution” scored 0 percent and “Other” scored 8 percent with no specifications indicated.

Caribbean Voices on Higher Education Internationalization in the Region Regional academic experts and actors were consulted for their views on internationalization and whether they considered it a critical tool for enhancing local and regional capacities for quality higher education and sustainable development in countries such as those of the Caribbean. The considerations presented below capture the consensus in responses. Relevance of Internationalization of Higher Education in the Region It is a common idea that higher education is an engine for development, trade in services, job creation, and poverty reduction and that internationalization can be a vehicle to foster economic and social growth, through the achievement of global and regional development imperatives, while minimizing negative social, cultural, and environmental impacts. In all cases, internationalization of higher education in the Caribbean is considered an integrative regionalization force of collaborative action among parties, allowing countries to bridge educational gaps and share the knowledge created through networking and cooperation projects. Regional academic experts and actors also were in favor of the ongoing networking for the launch of a Caribbean and Latin America common space for higher education, science, and technology, which would relate to other regional spaces worldwide. This way, students and academics will surpass the insular or sub-regional and think globally. Internationalization as a Key Factor for Academic and Institutional Quality HEIs were considered instrumental in providing guidance to identify opportunities and planning actions that the sector can include in their program cycles. In order to achieve this, an active institution-wide internationalization culture and measurement of its developmental impact through continuous quality assessment were essential. Critical issues to be resolved

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

209

included adequate institutional funding for capacity-building of staff and students through study abroad, a globalized curriculum, participation in regional and international conferences, targeted research output on issues related to the region’s vulnerabilities and development, and meaningful and enhancing partnerships, A comprehensive, regional approach that focuses and deploys limited resources effectively, that is based on attracting greater numbers of international students in subject areas in which public HEIs have a good reputation and that leverages the results of research and the considerable technical expertise of HEIs will strengthen the reputation of the region in the international higher education sphere and enable it to forge its brand of internationalization. Another pressing issue to be addressed on behalf of institutional sustainability in a global environment is to provide the assurances of quality, technological platforms, and the transferability of credits to attract potential international students, faculty, and business organizations. Sustainable Development and Internationalization in the Caribbean Context The sustainable development of a society requires inclusive, equitable, and quality education and learning opportunities for all. The rhetoric must be replaced by action which contemplates, for example, an increase in the number of scholarships available to developing countries for higher education studies by 2030, and an increase in the offer for training teachers in developing countries, through international cooperation. This cooperation will strengthen the capacity of the State to drive social transformation, equity, and regional identity, and contribute to the understanding and overcoming of the inequalities that characterize the region. Internationalization of Caribbean Higher Education: Policies and General Practices It was felt that the internationalization of higher education, to be meaningful and effective, should not be limited to the academic domain but should involve other sectors. The suggestion was the creation of a public–private partnership for the purpose, focusing on the quadruple approach of the Helix network (university-business-society-government), integrating the social dimension where character, goals, responsibility, and ethical values become integrators of efficiency, prudence, and justice. Mentorships, emphasizing the value-added entrepreneurship, innovation, and problem-solving capacities among our youth, would be important elements of their training in preparation for their effective participation in a globalized world. Internationalization of Higher Education: North and South Approaches Regional academic experts and actors were asked to identify differences between the approach and dynamics of internationalization in the North and in the South. They were of the view that it was treated as a financial academic and scientific hegemonic strategy by institutions in the North. For the South, it represented more of an opportunity to improve academic and scientific quality, access funds, share high-level knowledge, and contribute to driving development. They considered research to be critical for the enhancement of the entire education system and to increase local capacity to offer high value-added services, as well as the institution’s capacity to attract funding. Given that there are more opportunities available for researchers in the Global North, they felt that focus should be placed on developing more local research capacity in order to be able to participate in large-budget projects with foreign partners in developed countries.

210

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS The trend has been for HEIs to focus on partnership arrangements with overseas institutions in North America, Europe, and Asia for the franchising and joint development of programs, and the joint establishment of research centers where choice of partners would be guided by common language. Over the past decade, several universities in the region have been engaging in greater south–south cooperation, in some cases propelled by their governments, the private sector, and multilateral agencies engaged in regional commercial arrangements. The European Union has been an effective partner for Caribbean ACP (Asia, Caribbean, Pacific) governments, under the umbrella of CARIFORUM, and the higher education sector has benefited consistently over the past decade from its Development Fund (EDF) arrangements for student and staff mobility programs for professional development and research projects targeting solutions to common regional challenges and needs. Individual HEIs in the South have developed strategic partnerships with institutions in the North and, in some cases, with Latin American universities, such as the experience of Cuba with Mexico. The Dominican Republic, followed by Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Haiti, have joint and double degree programs with foreign universities. The University of the West Indies (The UWI), the Université des Antilles (UA—Poles Martinique and Guadeloupe), and Po Bordeaux (France) offer a joint Master’s Programme of Excellence in Political Sciences. The four-year program comprises a one-year rotation at each institution and the final year at Po Bordeaux. The program educates young researchers in the political and legal systems of the Caribbean. Graduates tend to secure jobs with international agencies and regional organizations.

The Caribbean as an International Provider of Educational Services An assessment of the Caribbean higher education situation will show that the financial forces loom large. This can be viewed from two perspectives: the fiscal constraints faced by governments and the inability of students to pay for their programs. With the low level of growth in some territories and correspondingly the inability to secure jobs, students are reluctant to take up loans or have difficulty in repaying. Institutions are pressed to expand their financial resource base. The success of offshore institutions, for example, the medical training facilities of St. George’s University in Grenada and Ross University in St. Kitts, and in the Dominican Republic, in providing university level education to foreign students (mainly from the United States), is evidence that the export of higher education from developing countries in the Caribbean is financially viable (Bernal, 2019). Cuba has the largest number of foreign students in the region and exports its educational services in long-standing South–South cooperation arrangements. The prospect for this activity is enhanced by increased virtual delivery of higher education programs. If done on a sufficient scale, with vigorous international marketing and strategic coordination, a Trans-Caribbean cluster of higher education institutions could emerge with the potential to be a new export sector for the small developing economies of the Caribbean catering to foreign students and to cyber-students (Bernal, 2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

211

ACADEMIC COOPERATION STRATEGIES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL Since 2000, the region has been experiencing the manifestations of internationalization undertaken by universities in the global community. These include, in particular, the entry of transnational providers of higher education (Gift, Thurab-Nkhosi, and Alleyne, 2017). These foreign institutions are more flexible in their admission policies than local tertiary institutions and tend to be more entrepreneurial in marketing themselves and their programs. This development has sparked some concern about the relevance of these institutions’ objectives to the vision of the Caribbean (Williams, 2006).

THE ANGLOPHONE COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN The public higher education sector in the Anglophone Caribbean includes a regional university, The University of the West Indies (The UWI), national universities, and community colleges. The UWI responds to the higher education needs of seventeen island states and is making maximum use of its multinational reach to take advantage of the opportunities provided by internationalization in order to serve its constituents more effectively. Much progress has been made despite numerous challenges, not least of which is the high cost of making accessible a full range of learning options and opportunities to the seventeen small states it covers (Rampersad, 2017). The UWI Open Campus plays a significant role in this endeavor and is likely to become a more dominant player as the institution expands its global outreach. Many Anglophone Caribbean universities network actively with colleague institutions in the Spanish, Dutch, and French Caribbean within Universities Caribbean (UC), formerly UNICA (with official languages English, French and Spanish), which seeks to be an integrative force and to provide “One Caribbean Solutions.” The Association aims to maintain a persistent lobby among all stakeholders, including multilateral agencies and the business sector, on the important role that universities play in developing innovative entrepreneurship in the Caribbean and their need to partner for the sustainable development of the region by contributing their expertise and resources. (Moïse, 2019). Also, many institutions, particularly from the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), are members of the Association of Caribbean Tertiary Institutions Network (ACTI). With the recent creation of the Hemispheric University Consortium by eleven university leaders from the Americas, including The UWI, pressing regional challenges such as public health, climate change and urban resilience, crime and corruption, and entrepreneurship with inclusive innovation will be addressed, an important component being shared online courses for members of the Consortium (University of Miami News, 2018). Examples of effective partnerships and networking are the research networks addressing regional environmental and social challenges, created by The UWI and national Universities. The UWI was accorded global leadership by the International Association of Universities (IAU) in the mobilization of research and advocacy for the achievement of a climate-smart world. Subsequently, a global cluster of universities has been set up to assist in the task of achieving SDG 13 (UN Sustainable Development Goal 13—Climate action). Additionally, there is the Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies; The Centre for Marine Sciences (CMS), which networks with the GEF-funded Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem and Adjacent Areas (CLME) project;

212

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and The Climate Research Centre. There are several national, regional, and international institutions that have been partnering with UTECH (Jamaica) in its Co-op Ed Programme since 2012 and with the activities of its Caribbean Sustainability Energy and Innovation Institute (CSEII) and the Caribbean Procurement Training and Consultancy Centre (CPICC). Anglophone Caribbean universities have multiple cooperation agreements with universities in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the United Kingdom, which facilitate scholarships and research grants. Several participate actively in the short-term exchange opportunities for staff and students to study or conduct research at the undergraduate and graduate levels, such as the Canada-CARICOM Leadership Scholarships Program and the Emerging Leaders in the Americas Program (ELAP). There is also a growing number of bilateral agreements with universities in Latin America providing primarily for language exchange and teacher training. Several universities have also engaged in partnerships with new players in the world economy, China and India, in particular. Confucius Institutes exist on the campuses of many institutions, providing training in language and culture primarily to undergraduate students, many of whom subsequently migrate to mainland China, as English teachers. Individual universities have student exchange programs in diverse areas. The University of Guyana’s internationalization thrust will be boosted when it partners with Arizona State University to implement research programs in sustainable management and preservation of the country’s ecosystem, funded through significant investments negotiated between Conservation International-Guyana (CI-G) and the ExxonMobil Foundation for education (Guyana Chronicle, 2018: 14).

THE DUTCH CARIBBEAN The diversity in culture, language, colonial heritage, and higher education systems of the small islands in the Dutch Caribbean makes regional cooperation in higher education more difficult than on bigger continents (de Wit, 2017). While this is so, the national universities of Curacao and Aruba and St Martin, islands with primarily tourism-based economies, have increasingly been networking with institutions in diverse linguistic Caribbean territories, while maintaining a Dutch accreditation system. Both the University of Curacao and the University of Aruba are historically active members of UNICA (UC). The University of Suriname, a former Dutch colony on the South America continent, has diverse collaborative arrangements, including student and staff exchange, with Poland, China, Canada, and Brazil; joint projects and programs with France and French Guyana, The UWI, the University of Trinidad and Tobago, and the University of Guyana; as well as a multinational project on mangrove rehabilitation in coastal areas funded by local and international partners. It also has its own accrediting body (NOVA).

THE FRANCOPHONE CARIBBEAN France: Guadeloupe-Martinique Student and staff mobility at the Université des Antilles (UA), Poles Martinique and Guadeloupe, are normally funded through the Erasmus staff mobility (European) program, the Collectivité Territoriale de Martinique, and industry–academic partnerships

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

213

with private local Foundations. The Centre Nationale pour la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the Horizon 20-20 EU-funded program provide research funding and individual fellowships. UA is an Associate member of the OECS and participates in joint projects in Health Administration, for example. UA, The UWI, the University of Havana, and UNAPEC (DR) collaborate on the AUF-CORPUCA Chair project in Caribbean Studies (Moïse, 2019).

Haiti The higher education system in Haiti has an important participation of private HEIs. Besides the Université d’État d’Haïti, with the intention of regionalizing the higher education system in Haiti, ten public universities were established in rural provinces in 2014. These HEIs are engaged in an intensive lobby for the adoption of legislation with a view to modernizing the higher education ecosystem. Haitian academic experts and actors see internationalization as an opportunity to compare the reality of Haiti with that of other countries and this is essential for the education of young students and professionals. Internationalization strategies include agreements with foreign universities and university associations providing, for exchange of professors and students, joint research projects, training and research grants; student scholarships offered by foreign universities; collaboration in governance; and affiliation with regional and international organizations and networks. In 2011, the Collège Doctoral Haïtien, CDH, was established with research laboratories at three HEIs—The State University, UEH, Quisqueya University, uniQ, and the Ecole Supérieure d’Infotronique d’Haïti, ESIH (Lumarque, 2018). Several Haitian HEIs have been providing institutional financial support for PhD students and junior researchers despite very limited financial capacities. The Haitian Association for the Advancement of Science and Technology is a public–private university initiative to create cross-border activities with research networks in the Americas. There is also a Consortium of five public and private HEIs and EU partners for a project to promote a Quality Assurance culture, funded by the EU ERASMUS PLUS facility. The mobility experience in the MBA program, organized by the University of Notre Dame of Haiti, in partnership with HEIs in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, has generated in students the confidence for Haiti to attain the economic and social achievements of other Caribbean countries. Other cooperation programs include Jamaica, in the field of financial statements and Cuba, mainly in health education. To counteract the colonial production model established in Haiti, which has contributed to its environmental deterioration, new models in regional academic exchanges have made it possible for Haiti to assess its own environmental sustainability. The Haitian diaspora is set to play an important role in the development of internationalization and progress in Haiti once the current resistance to their efforts at the country level is removed.

THE SPANISH CARIBBEAN Cuba The Cuban higher education system is composed only of public HEIs, where great importance is attached to internationalization and academic cooperation, even when mobility and other strategies have been limited for decades due to a political and economic blockade. Collaboration with the socialist bloc allowed Cuba to open its door

214

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

to other countries, including the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America, and to be involved in the region’s internationalization and academic cooperation processes. Internationalization is now a significant part of the strategic planning of Cuba’s Ministry of Higher Education and is considered a transversal axis for the management and development of university processes, and for the creation and transfer of knowledge from scientific research activity. Cuba has public and institutional policies that support internationalization and it stands out as the country with the greatest results in international academic cooperation, despite the hostile international environment that limits its strategies. Villavicencio and Montero (2019) indicate that significant achievements in academic cooperation in Cuba include: a. More than 2,093 (2018) interuniversity and ministerial agreements with more than 100 countries to enhance mobility, joint research, and publications. Approximately 253 (2018) international cooperation projects in diverse areas. b. Cuban universities, professors, and researchers participate in more than 387 (2018) international academic and scientific networks and are members of 44 international associations. c. Annually, more than 3,178 (2018) Cuban academics, researchers, and students participate in mobility programs. This includes the annual more than 450 international scholarships, mainly at the doctoral level. More than 75 percent of the scholarships in the area of teaching and scientific research were in developed countries and institutions of excellence. d. The participation of Cuban HEIs in European Union funded projects and individual cooperation projects has had great impact. Cuba also participates in regional networks, such as UDUAL, AUGM, CSUCA, UC, and AUFCORPUCA.

The Dominican Republic This country has an education system where private HEIs represent about 50 percent of university enrollment. The involvement of the public and private sector in the promotion of joint academic programs, internships, student mobility, international accreditation, and internationalization of the curriculum is noteworthy. Dominicans pursuing master’s and doctoral degree programs at universities in Latin America and Europe have also strengthened the capacity of the local profession, largely supported by the international scholarship program sponsored by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology (MESCyT, 2016). For several decades, students have chosen the Dominican Republic to pursue degrees in Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Studies, and Agronomy, with US Federal loans or funded by the European Union. There is a significant presence of Haitian students in national universities, almost 10 percent of total enrollment. The articulation between international cooperation agencies (JICA, Korea, AECID, EU, others), with the needs of local development and the internationalization of higher education, has led to the development of projects of capacity building, innovation, and technological development, in which Dominican universities play an important role. There are policy provisions supporting human resource training (scholarships, exchanges, hiring academics of excellence), the teaching of foreign languages, and scientific-technological cooperation.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

215

Even when advances in internationalization and academic cooperation are evident, it is expected that the new law on Higher Education, Science and Technology and the New Convention for the Recognition of Studies, Degrees and Diplomas of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC-UNESCO) will challenge universities and the national higher education system to advance in the processes of accreditation and international recognition of their programs and HEIs.

Puerto Rico As a US Commonwealth country in the Caribbean, Puerto Rico has been included in this study based on the Caribbean outreach of its higher education sector. This regionalization process started in 1968, when the leadership of the University of Puerto Rico, UPR, and The University of the West Indies founded UNICA. The Inter-American University of Puerto Rico is also an active member, since this country has a higher education system with a high participation of private HEIs. Regional cooperation between the UPR and other Caribbean Universities includes Faculty Exchange visits between UPR Campuses and the Anglophone and francophone Caribbean, and the Dominican Republic to develop collaborative initiatives, including seminars mounted by the Institute of Caribbean Studies, Rio Piedras Campus, to seek solutions to common challenges, and participation in significant research projects relating to HIV/AIDS, Agriculture, Food Security, and Climate Change. Mobility is also considered a relevant internationalization activity for HEIs in this country. The Puerto Rico Board of Education has launched the Puerto Rico Campus strategy to attract students from Latin America and the Caribbean and Hispanic students from the United States and their territories (CEPR, 2014).

CONCLUSION Trends in Caribbean universities, based on the information garnered in the Survey and from the comments of regional academic professionals, indicate that all Caribbean universities are taking steps, in varying degrees, to consolidate and widen their scope of internationalization action in mobility, quality, relevance, innovation, and partnerships, mainly through research, capacity-building, technical cooperation, and marketing. Applying a SWOT approach, the following are some of the conclusions reached.

Strengths Caribbean HEIs are increasingly partnering with the public and private sectors to enhance the level of participation of the countries they serve in the global thrust for sustainable development. The survey responses speak to the strategic action undertaken for the development of their systems and the development of the potential of their staff and students. The shared circumstance of limited resources, environmental vulnerabilities, and developmental challenges faced by Caribbean developing countries makes it necessary to embrace a culture of cooperation. However, while the Caribbean University has the capacity to influence the intellectual and socio-economic development of future generations, it was felt that governments must take responsibility for leading and managing the development process in their countries.

216

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Weaknesses Both government and academia need to pay more attention to solutions-oriented action applying a multi-stakeholder approach. Greater internal and external support and activism for transformational change in socio-economic and political arenas are necessary to expand the opportunities for innovation, creativity, and purpose for Caribbean youth, for active engagement with the sustainable development goals.

Opportunities Academic experts were of the view that the construction of global competences to support the transformation that the region requires will afford higher education institutions the opportunity to bridge educational gaps and share the knowledge created through networks and cooperation projects where results become articulators of the integration of our HEIs. They felt that future professionals who study in institutions that have established comprehensive internationalization policies and strategies graduate with a multicultural identity that better equips them for a borderless labor market. Equally, through internationalization, academic staff and researchers are provided with the opportunity to upgrade their scientific qualifications and professional degrees and have their research recognized. For administrative staff, it is an important vector for institutional development.

Threats The threat of brain drain from developing countries to developed countries is a real one. Youth unemployment in the Caribbean is a serious issue and unless governments and academic leadership engage with international development agencies and the private sector to attain the growth of new emerging sectors to provide employment prospects and decent jobs for their youth, the situation will not be reversed. Additionally, the internationalization policies of HEIs in the developed world do not necessarily target “global citizenship” among their students. Frequently, the objective is to increase their international positioning for ranking purposes and, in many instances, there is interest in the high economic benefits of opening campuses in developing countries with wealth potential. Another threat identified by the experts is that the benefits of internationalization are accessible to only the privileged few who are able to undertake mobility costs. This exclusionary practice can only be eliminated if there is increased recognition of quality higher education as a human right and the definition of policies regarding quality assurance.

RECOMMENDATIONS The consensus of regional academic experts and actors is that the internationalization of higher education is critical for sustainable development in Caribbean countries, but it must overcome the North–South model and promote South–South cooperation to be effective. In a globalized environment, HEIs must partner with international networks and associations to mobilize talent to engage in global research and knowledge transfer. They must advance policies for increasing investment and measuring impact; drive innovation in the public and private sectors, moving the focus from an exclusively academic view towards society; contribute to cultural, social, organizational and scientific

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

217

innovations through knowledge transfer; and foster international relations. Action in this regard is essential to support the Caribbean Higher Education Internationalization sector, for effective participation in the emerging, global knowledge economy. Finally, there is consensus on the need to strengthen the region as an articulated multicultural community. At present, the Caribbean remains a space under construction and yet our education system, culminating in the University, contributes little to the construction of our “Caribbean space.” It is desirable that the internationalization of higher education, its strategies and its processes, contribute to defining a base of common knowledge on the Caribbean, regardless of national and local choices. There is also a need to develop and implement transnational policies to disseminate this shared knowledge. The process is necessarily based on a strong political will and especially on the involvement of university networks (Universities Caribbean, UDUAL, CORPUCA Interuniversity Chair etc.) who could give some direction (Reno, 2019). This would result in mandatory cross-university and inter-university education in partner universities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The views of Caribbean university academic experts and actors helped to shape this study and provide an authentic Caribbean perspective of Higher Education. The institutional information contributed by survey respondents is useful both for an assessment of current resources and strategies available to the sector, as well as to update the earlier OBIRET study. The authors of this article are grateful to all parties for their time and willingness to contribute to this study. The authors wish to highlight the collaboration of the director and authorities who completed the institutional survey, as well as the academic experts, professors, and students, representatives of AUF, CORPUCA, IUO, OEI, UC, Nicolas Guillén Foundation, Ministry of Higher Education of Cuba, Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of DR, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of DR, COPRUHA, ADRU, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo, UASD and Instituto Tecnológico de las Américas, ITLA, who answered the opinion poll, becoming “the voices from the Caribbean.” The authors also recognize the efficient contribution of Eng. Altagracia Pozo, Quality Manager of UNAPEC, in the preparation and management of the computer platform of the survey.

REFERENCES Beckles, H., Perry, A., and Whitely, P. (2005). Brain Train—Quality Higher Education and Caribbean Development. Jamaica: Pearl Tree Press. Beckles, H. (2017). Rekindling the Caribbean Renaissance. The University of West Indies website/Home/Featured Story. Available online: https://www.uwi.edu/featured-story/ vc-black-history.asp (accessed August 19, 2019). Bernal, R. (2019). The globalization of higher education: The imperative for a Caribbean regional cluster. Caribbean Journal of Education, 41(1): 2. Botero, J. (2017). The current landscape of policies and institutions for Higher Education. In Ferreyra, M. et al. (eds), At a Crossroads. Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC : World Bank Group, pp. 231–262. CEPR, Consejo de Educación de Puerto Rico (2014). Internacionalización de la Educación Superior: Campus Puerto Rico. Available online: https://cp.prasfaa.org/documentos/

218

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Internacionalizacion%20de%20la%20Educacion%20Superior%20-%20Campus%20 Puerto%20Rico.pdf (accessed August 29, 2019). De Wit, H. (2017). The challenges of international HE in a small country. International Higher Education, 99. ECLAC, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean; ECLAC sub regional headquarters for the Caribbean (2017). Report of the eighteenth meeting of the Monitoring Committee of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee. United Nations. Available online: https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/41995 (accessed August 19, 2019). Gacel-Ávila, J., and Rodríguez, S. (2019). The Internationalization of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. An Assessment. México: Universidad de Guadalajara. Available online: http://erasmusplusriesal.org/sites/default/files/an_assessment_ebook.pdf (accessed August 15, 2019). Gift, S., Thurab-Nkhosi, D., and Alleyne, R. (2017). Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Anglophonic Countries in Latin America. Quality Assurance Unit, St Augustine: UWI . Guyana Chronicle (2018). Exxon to invest US$10 M in training locals. Available online: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_new_york_ edition_e_2f185ab813c2a5 (accessed September 15, 2019). IESALC (2018a). Declaration of the III General Conference on Higher Education on Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/ higher-education/iesalc (accessed September 15, 2019). IESALC (2018b). Action Plan 2018–2028 III General Conference on Higher Education on Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean. Available online: https://drive. google.com/file/d/1jLtlpTkJaNFphmOuz_KRzzBu5AiPnirN/view (accessed August 15, 2019). Jibeen, T., and Asad Khan, M. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: Potential benefits and costs. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 4(4): 196–199. Lam, N., Arenas, H, Brito, P., and Liu, K. (2014). Assessment of vulnerability and adaptive capacity to coastal hazards in the Caribbean Region. Journal of Coastal Research, 70 (1), Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Westville: University of KwaZulu-Natal. Lumarque, J. (2018). Collège doctoral d’Haïti. Le Nouevelliste. Available online: https:// lenouvelliste.com/article/156841/college-doctoral-dhaiti-jacky-lumarque-appelle-letat-ajouer-sa-partition (accessed September 25, 2019). Madera, L. (2011). Promoviendo la Internacionalización en la Región del Caribe. In Claves y Herramientas para la Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en el Caribe, EUCANET Project, EDULINK Program. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, pp. 13–28. MEPyD, Ministerio de Economía, Planificación y Desarrollo de la República Dominicana (2016). El Escenario Geopolítico de las Economías de los países del Caribe. Santo Domingo: MEPyD. Available online: http://economia.gob.do/wp-content/uploads/drive/UEPESC/ Informes/Escenario_geopol%C3%ADtico_pa%C3%ADses_Caribe.pdf (accessed August 22, 2019). MESCyT, Ministerio de Educación Superior, Ciencia y Tecnología de la República Dominicana (2016). Informe General Sobre Estadísticas de Educación Superior 2013 y 2014 y Resumen Histórico 2005–2014. Available online: http://www.educa.org.do/wp-content/ uploads/2016/11/Estadi%CC%81sticas-de-Educacio%CC%81n-Superior-2013-y-2014.pdf (accessed August 15, 2019). Mihut, G., Altbach, P., and de Wit, H. (eds) (2017). Understanding Higher Education Institutionalization. Insights from Key Global Publications, vol. 39, Rotterdam: Sense

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

219

Publishers. Available online: https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/3322-understandinghigher-education internationalization.pdf (accessed August 16, 2019). Moïse, Myriam (2019). One Caribbean: For an integrated university sector. UNESCO-IESALC Educación Superior y Sociedad, Higher Education in the Caribbean, 31(31), 178–182. Available online: http://www.iesalc.unesco.org/ess/index.php/ess3/issue/view/14 (accessed September 9, 2019). Rampersad, D. (2017). The internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean. In de Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Jones, E., and Jooste, N. (eds), The Globalization of Internationalization. Emerging Voices and Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 89–98. Reno, F. (2019). L’ignorance partagée, obstacle à la construction caribéenne. In UNESCOIESALC Educación Superior y Sociedad, Higher Education in the Caribbean, 31(31): 104–113. Available online: http://www.iesalc.unesco.org/ess/index.php/ess3/issue/view/14 (accessed September 2, 2019). Rumbley, L., Altbach, P., and Reisberg, L. (2012). Internationalization within the higher education context. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298633161_ Internationalization_within_the_higher_education_context (accessed August 18, 2019). United Nations (n.d.). Transforming our world. The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20 Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (accessed August 10, 2019). University of Miami News (2018). Seeking synergy in university collaboration. Available online: https://news.miami.edu/stories/2018/04/seeking-synergy-in-university-collaboration.html (accessed September 12, 2019). Villavicencio, M., and Montero, A. (2019). Educación Superior e Internacionalización en Cuba. La Habana: Ministerio de Educación Superior, Las Villas: UCVL . Vision 2030, Jamaica (2009). Education Sector Plan 2009–2030. Education draft Sector Plan Final Draft. Available online: https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2009/vision-2030-jamaicanational-development-plan-education-draft-sector-plan-plan-final-draft-5183 (accessed August 26, 2019). Williams, H. (2016). Some Key Forces Impacting on Higher Education—The Caribbean Perspective. Jamaica: University of Technology. Available online: https://www. acheacaribbean.org/sites/default/files/Horace%20Williams%20.doc (accessed August 20, 2019).

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Internationalization of Chilean Higher Education Research, Innovation, and Human Capital Formation in a Globalized Era1 JAVIER GONZ Á LEZ, ANDR É S BERNASCONI, AND FRANCISCA PUYOL

INTRODUCTION Internationalization has played a key role in Chile’s national development strategy, especially since the 1990s. The promotion of international agreements led by the state has played a critical role in Chile’s insertion in the global economy and geopolitical arena. Internationalization has been key to gain competitiveness and to allow the flow of technology, capital, and human talent, promoting the exchange of ideas, knowledge, and innovation. The higher education system has also experienced this process, although at a slower pace when compared with other sectors. For this reason, the capacity of the country both at the macro (national) and micro (institutional) level to promote a coherent higher education internationalization strategy capable of inserting Chile in global knowledge and innovation networks will play a key role in shaping its future economic and social development path. A general assessment of the performance of the Chilean higher education system shows mixed results. On the one hand, in the last few decades, it has drastically expanded to incorporate a progressively growing number of students. As a result, Chile has achieved high gross enrollment rates by any international standard. Nevertheless, the Chilean strategy has had noticeable costs: massification of enrollment was obtained at the cost of the emergence of an initially loosely regulated private higher education sub-system, which allowed the entrance of low-quality institutions, which usually targeted students from low-income families, and operated with inadequate staff and infrastructure. Only in the past fifteen years has Chilean higher education seen stronger quality assurance pressure from accreditation.

We thank the support provided by the Ministry of Economy, through the Millennium Scientific Initiative and its nucleus on Higher Education hosted at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. We also thank funding provided by project CONICYT PIA CIE#160007.

1

220

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

221

Moreover, the funding model for the entire system (public and private) has rested on private contributions in the form of high tuition fees—relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita—which until recently were mainly borne by families. These are some of the underlying factors that drove the 2006 and 2011 student movements, which eventually led to free tuition for poorer students and tougher accreditation requirements, among other reforms. Moreover, although Chile has successfully consolidated a community of high-quality researchers in a handful of universities, its size is still insufficient to address the country’s economic and social development needs. The situation is unlikely to be reversed in the short term due to the relatively weak public and private investment levels in research and development (R & D). To tackle this state of affairs, internationalization could be used as a critical lever for upgrading and expanding the capacity of the tertiary education system to train effectively technicians, professionals, and scientists, and also insert itself in firstclass regional and global collaborative research and innovation networks, where additional funding is more abundant. Notwithstanding the said shortcomings, the country has come a long way with regards to internationalization during the last decades both at a national and an institutional level. Indeed, from a national, or top-down perspective, state-led policies have gained traction since the mid-2000s. Several funds and programs were put in place to promote the attraction of foreign advanced human capital to Chilean universities, the development of global collaborative research and innovation projects, and greater international mobility of students. The Chilean government has been especially active in this area. In fact, in 2008 it launched a unique and bold initiative (Becas Chile), which became one of the largest programs of its kind in the world—relative to a country’s population. Moreover, it was later followed by other countries in the region, like Brazil, with its “Science Without Borders” program, in which Chile aimed to send postgraduate students, technicians, medical doctors, and school teachers to study abroad. To achieve this goal, considerable public resources were invested, international agreements with universities and vocational institutions were promoted, and an extensive program to teach foreign languages (English, German, and French) was implemented. An interesting characteristic of the program was its progressiveness, as it allowed many young talented Chileans from low-socioeconomic backgrounds to study abroad and pursue a postgraduate program at top-level universities. These young scholars, together with their newly formed international networks, are currently returning to Chile and many of them are being hired at national HEIs. The impact of this program in terms of internationalization is still to be assessed. From an institutional or bottom-up perspective, higher education institutions have also increasingly taken internationalization into their own hands. They have extended this phenomenon to different dimensions, such as institutional planning, evaluation, generation of networks, student and staff mobility, curriculum design, development of joint/double degrees, research, and innovation activities, among others. While before the 1990s less than 5 percent of HEIs formally included “internationalization” as part of their institutional development plans, by the mid-2000s more than 70 percent did so (Ramírez, Delgado, and Espitia, 2004). This chapter is structured as follows, after this introductory section. The second section characterizes the Chilean higher education system. The third reviews the situation of the higher education system in terms of its level of internationalization. The fourth describes state-led policies to promote internationalization, taking a closer look at Becas Chile, an important program fostering student international mobility. It then analyzes the

222

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

main strategies used by meso-level organizations and HEIs to globally insert themselves. Finally, the last section offers concluding remarks and highlights options to move forward.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN CHILE: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CRITICAL ISSUES Structure, Funding, and Institutions Chilean higher education is composed of 150 institutions, including 61 universities and 89 non-university tertiary institutes (SIES, 2019a). Only eighteen universities are public, underscoring one of the salient features of Chilean higher education: its degree of privatization, ostensible not just in the breakdown of institutions, but also in enrollment patterns. Private higher education has a long tradition in Chile, with the founding of the first private university, the Universidad Católica de Chile, dating back to 1888. Private institutions have outnumbered public ones since the 1920s, and are now responsible for 84 percent of total enrollments, making Chile one of the world’s leaders in private matriculation in higher education. Until recently, all the non-university postsecondary sector was private. In 2016 Congress passed an act mandating the creation of a national network of fifteen public technical training centers (postsecondary, two-year vocational schools). Currently, the government is in the process of establishing these state vocational schools by 2022, the first of which are now beginning to operate, one in each region of Chile, but still with very small numbers of students. Unlike private universities, private IPs and CFTs are allowed to operate for profit, but to participate in the free tuition program (described below), institutions must be non-profit. Moreover, only 40 percent of the funding for higher education comes from the government. The rest comes from private sources, mostly in the form of tuition payments made by students and their families. And of the part of the overall funding that comes from the state, 70 percent is spent in financial aid for students, in the form of scholarships, free tuition, or subsidized loans. Both private and public institutions charge tuition, although students coming from the lower deciles of family income are eligible for scholarships and loans. Since 2016, moreover, lower-income students have qualified for free tuition at both state and private institutions. In 2018, some 30 percent of undergraduate students were enrolled in the free tuition program (Bernasconi, 2019). During the last twenty years, Chilean higher education has experienced a boom in enrollments, which plateaued in 2015. In 2016, seven out of ten students were the first from their families to access higher education. From 1990 to 2017, the gross higher education enrollment ratio increased by more than 400 percent. In terms of raw numbers, total enrollments have increased from about 249,482 students in 1990 to almost 452,325 in 2000. By 2019, the number stood at 1,268,000 (SIES, 2019b). The breakdown of enrollments by type of institution is as follows: 16 percent in public universities, 43 percent in private universities, and 41 percent in the vocational and technical sector (SIES, 2019b). The rate of completion of high school is high in Chile, compared with the rest of Latin America. Some 83 percent of youths in the age cohort finish high school on time, and the net enrollment rate in higher education is 53 percent. Moreover, the country has made great strides in expanding access for lower-income students. In 1990, students coming

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

223

from families in the highest income quintile were represented at a ratio of 9 to 1 compared with those coming from the lower income quintile. By 2015, that ratio was 2 to 1.

International Standing of Chilean Universities One way of assessing the international prestige and academic position of national institutions is using international higher education rankings. In the global rankings, which consider an array of indicators, the performance of the Chilean system seems far from outstanding. The best three Chilean universities rank 132 (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), 208 (Universidad de Chile) and 511–520 (Universidad de Santiago) in the 2019 QS ranking, and 401–500 (Universidad de Chile), 501–600 (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), and 801–900 (Universidad Andrés Bello and Universidad de Concepción) in the 2019 Shanghai Ranking (ARWU). Although the position of Chilean universities is not favorable at the global level, it seems much better at the regional level. Indeed, among the top ten Latin American universities in the 2019 QS ranking, two are Chilean, including the top one university of the region (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile). This is remarkable since the Chilean population is considerably smaller than that of Mexico and Colombia, which also have two universities within the top ten (Argentina, appears only once, despite having a population three times larger than Chile’s). Therefore, Chile constitutes a relevant and prestigious regional player in higher education. These rankings are also useful to assess the level of internationalization of top national universities. The Times Higher Education (THE) ranking and the QS ranking include two indicators to evaluate this dimension. The THE ranking measures “international outlook” considering the ability of a university to attract international students and staff, and undertake international collaboration in research. On the other hand, the QS indicator, “international research networks,’ indicates the diversity of an institution’s research collaboration with other institutions in different locations of the globe. If we focus specifically on these indicators and consider the resulting sub-ranking, the position of Chilean universities in the Latin American context is quite favorable, as shown in Table 15.1. In fact, in the

TABLE 15.1 THE World international ranking—Latin America international outlook2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

University of San Francisco, Quito Pontifical Catholic University of Chile Adolfo Ibáñez University Federico Santa María Technical University Monterrey Institute of Technology Buenos Aires Institute of Technology University of the Andes, Colombia Torcuato Di Tella University University of Chile University of the North, Colombia

99.7 92.3 88.8 87.6 87.4 84.9 81.6 81.6 80.6 79.6

Source: authors’ elaboration based on THE (2019).

THE-International Outlook: (1) Proportion of international students: 2.5%; (2) Proportion of international staff: 2.5%; (3) International collaboration in research: 2.5% of overall ranking scores. https://www. timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology

2

224

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

“international outlook” of the 2019 THE ranking for Latin America, Chilean institutions rank relatively high. They occupy four positions within the first top ten universities in the region.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Student Mobility: Inbound Student mobility is a key factor in understanding the level of internationalization of higher education. From a comparative perspective, the presence of international students in the Chilean higher education system is paltry but growing. The share of international students as a percentage of total higher education enrollment (ISCED 5-8) reached 0.4 percent in 2016 (OECD, 2019). This situation positions Chile at the bottom of the OECD countries, well behind nations such as New Zealand (19.8 percent) and the UK (18.1 percent). On the other hand, Chile is above other Latin American countries, but below Argentina, which exhibits relatively high numbers of inbound international students (see Table 15.2). Indeed, while in Brazil, international students represent only 0.2 percent of total tertiary enrollment; they reach 0.3 percent in Mexico. Moreover, the number of international

FIGURE 15.1: Student mobility in Chile: Inbound by country of origin. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on global flow of tertiary-level students. UNESCO (2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

225

higher education students in Chile has been growing over time. According to the Information System of Higher Education (SIES), between 2014 and 2017 enrollment of international students in Chilean higher education increased by 36 percent and that of foreign exchange students by 24 percent (SIES, 2019c). The level of internationalization, however, tends to be higher in postgraduate studies. In master’s programs, the percentage of international students in Chile reaches 1.4 percent, which doubles Mexico’s share (0.7 percent) and is higher than Brazil’s (1 percent). Nevertheless, it is lower than in New Zealand (26.1 percent), Australia (46.3 percent), and the UK (36.1 percent). Similarly, while in Chile, foreign PhD students represent 8 percent of enrollment at that level; this share is much lower than the level observed in developed OECD countries (New Zealand, 48.1 percent; Australia, 33.8 percent; UK, 43.2 percent), but higher than in other comparable Latin American countries such as Mexico (2.7 percent) and Brazil (2.5 percent). Most international students enrolled in Chile come from Latin America and the Caribbean. The region contributed 90 percent of international higher education students in Chile in 2017 (UNESCO, 2019). As shown in Figure 15.1, the most frequent countries of origin are Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Argentina, in that order. This distribution by country, roughly matching patterns of recent immigration, suggests that the presence of international students in Chile is related to families’ relocation, rather than individuals’ mobility for study.

Student Mobility: Outbound In contrast to the situation involving inbound student mobility, where the attraction of students to Chile is weak, the country tends to display a higher number of Chilean students studying abroad. Indeed, while the number of international students entering the country reached 4,708 in 2016, the number of students leaving the country is almost three times higher (14,122), according to UNESCO (2019). The percentage of Chilean students studying abroad is 0.8 percent of total local enrollment, which is below some OECD (2019) countries such as New Zealand (2.5

TABLE 15.2 Outbound and inbound students Total number of mobile students Outbound Germany France United States Brazil Colombia Greece UK Mexico Chile Australia Luxemburg Argentina New Zealand

119.021 90.717 72.830 52.515 36.626 35.505 34.025 33.854 14.122 12.731 10.243 8.371 5.580

Total number of mobile students Inbound 244.575 245.349 971.417 19.996 4.550 23.734 432.001 25.125 4.708 381.202 3.268 75.688 52.678

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on global flow of tertiary-level students. UNESCO (2019).

226

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 15.2: Student mobility in Chile: Outbound by country of destination. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on global flow of tertiary-level students. UNESCO (2019).

percent) and the UK (1.7 percent), somewhat higher than the United States (0.4 percent) and Brazil (0.5 percent), and similar to Australia (0.8 percent) and Mexico (0.8 percent). In terms of country destination, Chilean students tend to choose Argentina (39 percent), which could be explained by a higher preference for culturally similar societies and also for tuition-free systems. Additionally, the United States (18 percent) has the secondhighest share of students, followed by Spain (10 percent), Australia (6 percent), and the United Kingdom (6 percent), as shown in Figure 15.2.

Research and Development: Expenditure and Advanced Human Capital The ability of countries to successfully collaborate and participate in global networks of innovation and knowledge creation depends on the existence of adequate minimum conditions and capabilities to promote research and development (R & D). Among many key conditions and capabilities, expenditure in R & D and human capital are most critical. These two factors are analyzed next. Chile invests 0.36 percent of GDP in R & D, which is the lowest among OECD countries (OECD, 2019). While South Korea invests 4.55 percent, the highest on the list, countries such as Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK spend 3.34 percent, 1.37 percent, 1.88 percent, and 1.66 percent, respectively. Chile’s level of investment is lower than other developing countries such as South Africa (0.82 percent), Mexico (0.49 percent), and Argentina (0.54 percent).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

227

FIGURE 15.3: Expenditure in R & D as percentage of GDP (2017). Source: Authors’ elaboration based on OECD (2019).

Some could be tempted to argue that the low level of investment in Chile could be explained by its relatively lower level of economic development. Nevertheless, when Chile’s R & D investment levels are compared historically with those incurred by OECD countries in the past when those countries shared the same level of economic development as Chile—in terms of GDP per capita—the data show that Chile suffers from a historical lag. Indeed, Figure 15.3 shows the level of investment (2005 million US$ in PPP) in R & D made by countries when they had a GDP per capita of US$17,000 (Chile’s GDP per capita in 2014). For example, Chile invested US$1.290MM in 2014, which is approximately a third of the amount invested by Canada in 1968 when it had a GDP per capita of US$17,000. In other words, Chile is underinvesting in knowledge and innovation compared with historical trends. This has an impact on the capacity of the country to contribute to benefit from global research networks. With regards to advanced human capital formation, expressed in terms of the number of full-time equivalent researchers per 1,000 thousand total employees, Chile has relatively disappointing performance (Figure 15.4). From a comparative perspective (OECD, 2019), Chile ranks almost last with 1.1 researchers per thousand employees, just over Mexico (1.02), but below Argentina (2.88) and all other developed OECD countries such as Denmark (15.48), South Korea (14.43), New Zealand (7.94), and the UK (9.04).

Research and Development: Compared Productivity and International Collaboration Chile ranks 45 out of 239 countries in terms of scientific production, measured in terms of total publications in 2018, according to the Scimago Journal and Country Rank. According to this ranking, Chile produced a total of 14,618 papers in one year, which is much lower in absolute comparative numbers than the world top leaders, such as the United States (683,003), China (599,386), the UK (211,710), and Germany (180,608). Compared with countries with a similar GDP per capita, Chile is also surpassed by countries such as Poland (49,488), Turkey (45,582), Portugal (26,611), and the Czech Republic (24,401). However,

228

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 15.4: Investment in R & D when countries had the same GDP per capita (US$17,000). Source: Díaz (2015), in CNID (2016). Values are expressed in 2005 million US$ (PPP).

FIGURE 15.5: Total researchers (FTE) per thousand total employees (2017). Countries with current similar GDP per capita. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on OECD (2019).

when compared with other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Chile ranks fourth out of forty-eight countries in the region. It is only surpassed by Brazil, México, and Argentina, all countries with much larger populations than Chile. When a fairer comparison is made, examining the number of publications per researcher (FTE), the results are reversed. Chilean researchers are considerably more

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

229

FIGURE 15.6: International collaboration in research (2018). Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus (2019).

productive than their counterparts in rich OECD countries. Indeed, while in Chile the number of papers published per researcher reached 1.63 in 2018, the productivity in other leading countries such as the United Kingdom (0.75), Germany (0.45), and the United States (0.50) was less than half. Moreover, when the quality of scientific production is taken into account, Chile’s relative position also improves. When countries with at least 1,000 papers a year are taken into account, Chile ranks 39 out of 95 countries concerning number of citations per publication. This is higher than the United States (40), China (48), and South Korea (59). Also, considerably higher than regional peers such as Argentina (57), Peru (74), Colombia (77), Mexico (82), and Brazil (83). As shown by the data, Chile’s research community seems to be small but quite productive and high quality in comparative terms, which should provide a relatively good position to insert itself in global research networks. Indeed, internationalization of research in Chilean higher education is strong. The country leads the Iberian American region in international cooperation, as measured by Scopus publications in co-authorship with scholars from other countries. In 2018, the figure for Chile was 62.4 percent, followed by Portugal (54.9 percent), and Spain (49.8 percent). The lowest score was Brazil’s, with 33.9 percent. In fact, Chile seems to be highly inserted in the international community, even compared with world leading countries such as the United States (36.3 percent), the UK (56 percent), and Australia (56.4 percent). This has been a growing trend, as shown in Figure 15.6.

NATIONAL POLICIES: MAIN INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Internationalization of higher education is promoted at the national level by several ministries and public agencies. There are two main ministries involved in this task: the Ministry of Education—especially through the MECESUP program—and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—via the International Cooperation Agency for Development (AGCID). Additionally, there are autonomous state agencies involved in this task: the National

230

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) and the National Accreditation Commission (CNA). We briefly describe the main programs promoted by each of these institutions. We also analyze one of the largest programs in this area: Becas Chile. This program is interesting to examine not only because of its size but also because of its innovative approach towards internationalization. It should provide important lessons to be taken into account by other developing and developed countries striving to promote advanced capital formation abroad.

Key Institutions at the National Level Ministry of Education: MECESUP program. The Ministry of Education—specifically its Higher Education Division—is in charge of establishing the national policies to promote better access, higher quality and equity, and internationalization of the Chilean higher education system. These policies have been promoted via, among other programs, the MECESUP program, which started in 1998 in collaboration with the World Bank, with the objective of strengthening higher education institutions. MECESUP 2 (second stage) and MECESUP 3 (third stage) have fostered internationalization through funding to increase students and faculty mobility, international research collaboration, and even the generation of transferable academic credits across universities in the region. Although the MECESUP initiative ended in 2015, its competitive project-based approach to funding has remained the Ministry’s preferred mode of promoting the development of higher education institution’s strategic development initiatives, including internationalization. The Ministry also provides funds to promote the constitution of international networks and joint degrees, attraction of foreign students—with a particular focus on doctoral studies—and academic mobility. These funds are only reserved for higher education institutions that have the highest level of quality accreditation provided by the CNA, and at least ten doctoral programs, of which at least 75 percent have been accredited by the CNA. Ministry of Foreign Affairs: International Cooperation Agency for Development (AGCID) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also plays a role in the internationalization of higher education, through the International Cooperation Agency for Development (AGCID). This agency has a strong focus on fostering international cooperation in relation to research, development, innovation, and student mobility. The AGCID coordinates several programs and multi- and bi-lateral funds focused on enhancing technological and scientific transfer, foreign trade, and development. It promotes international agreements and scholarship programs to support undergraduate and postgraduate foreign students studying in Chile and national students studying abroad. National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research The National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) funds research and development in higher education and research centers across disciplines. From an internationalization perspective, it funds student and academic mobility, joint international research projects, access to international bibliographic databases, and the participation of researchers in international conferences. These objectives are supported through the following programs and initiatives, detailed in Table 15.3 (CONICYT, 2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

231

TABLE 15.3 CONICYT: Funding targeted to internationalization Attraction and Insertion of Advanced Human Capital Program

This program seeks to strengthen the academic, scientific, and technological capacities of national institutions that develop science and technology by means of: A) the attraction of recognized and internationally prestigious scientists to local universities in short and long stays, in order to strengthen collaboration networks; and B) the insertion in the academy and in the productive sector of new researchers who are trained in Chile and abroad.

Human Capital Formation Abroad

CONICYT manages the BECAS CHILE program, which funds postdoctoral, doctoral, and master’s studies abroad. This program will be discussed in detail in the next sections. CONICYT also provides funding to national and international students who study for their PhDs in Chile but require additional funding to strengthen international cooperation. It also supports doctoral internships abroad, co-tutelage, and attendance at academic events and short courses.

International Cooperation Agreements and Programs

The International Cooperation Agreements and Programs allow strengthening of international collaboration between the national scientific community and world-class centers of research. This is done by means of international joint research calls, and the formation of international networks and mobility programs. Currently, CONICYT has cooperation agreements with more than forty countries.

Electronic Library of Scientific Information (BEIC)

This program was co-financed by CONICYT and the Council of Rectors of Chilean Universities, in association with the Cincel Corporation. Its objective is to provide free online access to researchers, teachers, undergraduate and graduate students, fellows, and administrative staff of Chilean universities to scientific journals in more than 100 disciplinary areas.

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on CONICYT (2019).

National Accreditation Commission The National Accreditation Commission (CNA) is responsible for quality assurance of higher education through accreditation. This process aims to ensure that higher education institutions have reliable internal systems for regulating quality and outputs that comply with accreditation criteria. With the purpose of improving the accreditation system using international benchmarking and better practices, the CNA establishes international alliances with foreign quality assurance agencies to compare and ensure the reliability of the Chilean accreditation process (CNA, 2019). An example of such activities is the fourth mutual agreement on professional and academic degrees, signed between Chile and Spain, Ecuador, the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and Argentina. Another example is the participation of CAN in ARCUSUR, a system for quality assurance of undergraduate programs in various South American countries. This is implemented by the CNA as a member of the National Accreditation Agencies Network—RANA—from the educational sector of the MERCOSUR association of South American countries. This system includes the accreditation of Agronomy, Architecture, Nursing, Medicine, and Odontology (MERCOSUR, 2019). In sum, the CNA has established a series of international agreements and participates in several regional networks to incorporate international good practices (Table 15.4).

232

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 15.4 International cooperation: Quality assurance system International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)

A network of organizations responsible for quality assurance of higher education around the world. It aims at sharing experiences and knowledge in the field of quality assurance, spreading good practices.

Red Iberoamericana para la acreditación de la calidad de la Educación Superior (RIACES)

Its goal is to generate interaction between different institutions related to evaluation, accreditation, and quality assurance in Latin America, to boost academic excellence in higher education. It seeks to promote international cooperation and certify entities which are responsible for the quality assurance of Higher Education.

Red de Agencias Nacionales de Acreditación (RANA)

A network of National Accreditation Agencies that belong to the ARCU-SUR system.

Red de Administradores de Universidades Iberoamericanas (RAUI)

Workgroup composed by academics and administrators with management responsibilities in higher education institutions. This group aims to develop activities to share good practices in higher education management.

Sistema iberoamericano de aseguramiento de la calidad de la educación superior (SIACES)

A network of presidents of accreditation agencies of higher education in Iberian America. It aims to strengthen collaboration and establish shared criteria to assess quality of higher education institutions, sharing good practice and expert knowledge.

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on CNA (2019).

BECAS CHILE: A CASE STUDY OF A BOLD STATE-LED STRATEGY TOWARDS INTERNATIONALIZATION Study Abroad Scholarship Programs Boosting the formation of advanced human capital through international study abroad, scholarship programs have been a crucial strategy used by many countries interested in developing, strengthening, and internationalizing their higher education systems. Developing countries such as Chile, China, Brazil, and Colombia, as well as developed nations such as Belgium, Finland, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, provide domestic students with financial support to encourage them to study abroad in top-quality institutions, acquiring advanced knowledge and specific skills highly valued in their home countries upon their return. This section briefly discusses the Chilean experience in this field. This case study provides a relevant and pertinent benchmark to be taken into account by other developing and developed nations for several reasons. First, in 2008 Chile implemented the Becas Chile program (BCP), one of the biggest international postgraduate scholarship programs in the world, in relative terms (Table 15.5). Nevertheless, its uniqueness not only resides in its relative size, but also in its creative design. An international evaluation led by the OECD and the World Bank concluded that the Chilean scholarship program was “an innovative exemplar in public policy and administration” (OECD, 2010: 61). As a result, there are relevant lessons to be learnt from this experience.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

233

TABLE 15.5 Cross country comparison of program size Country

Student sponsored

Year of reference

As a % of total student enrollment at tertiary level

China Brazil Chile

12,402 4,043 3,300

2007 2007 BCP in Steady State

0.05 0.08 0.36

Source: OECD (2010).

Second, since Chile and other Latin American countries share an array of comparable economic and educational challenges, they are all in a similar position to benefit from the implementation of study abroad strategies. These countries are struggling to reduce their dependency on natural resources, devoting part of their revenues to promote research and innovation. Nevertheless, these nations still face important shortfalls in their higher education systems, especially in relation to their capacity to contribute to the knowledge economy. The success of their development strategies strongly depends on their capacity to rapidly upgrade the quality of their local tertiary education institutions and academic communities. Therefore, the recent progress made by Chile in this field should provide interesting insights to be considered by other countries.

Objectives of Chile’s International Scholarship Program In 2008, the Chilean government launched a new international scholarship program, the Becas Chile Program (BCP), intended to tackle the deficit of advanced human capital in the country. It originally aimed at sending 30,000 students to the finest universities, research centers, and vocational education institutions in the globe by the year 2017. Additionally, the government announced the future creation of a USD 6 billion endowment fund for human capital development, whose interest earnings would finance BCP’s yearly costs. Through these means, the resources set aside for this purpose would be available without overburdening annual government budgets, ensuring the long-term sustainability of this initiative.3

Expanding Access to Study Abroad The implementation of the BCP significantly increased the number of new scholarships awarded each year (Figure 15.7). By 2010, the number of scholarships was four times higher than in 2007 (pre-BCP), and more than ten times higher than its historical level (2000–2005). Additionally, it expanded the type of beneficiaries and scholarships offered. Before BCP, financial support focused exclusively on master’s and doctoral degrees. In contrast, additional funding schemes were created in BCP to support postdoctoral studies, doctoral short stays, postgraduate medical education (sub-specializations) for professionals from the health public sector, master’s degrees in education, math and science diplomas for public school teachers, and technical and vocational postsecondary education diplomas, among others. In sum, approximately 60 percent of all scholarships were directed towards postgraduate studies, 30 percent to technical and vocational education, and the remaining 10 percent to teacher training (OECD, 2010). This endowment fund has still not been created by law.

3

234

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 15.7: New international scholarships awarded per year. Source: González and Recart, 2010.

Targeting Human Capital Accumulation towards Priority Areas BCP was conceived as a policy aimed at supporting all areas of knowledge at the postgraduate level, from engineering to philosophy and the arts. Nevertheless, priority areas were also introduced to give an advantage to doctoral candidates working in key social and economic areas.4 This goal was achieved through the provision of additional bonus points in the selection process. Consequently, over 85 percent of doctoral and postdoctoral scholarships were awarded in these areas (González and Recart, 2010). No priority areas were introduced at the master’s level. In contrast, at the postsecondary technical level, scholarships were only provided for programs in pre-defined areas. These limited areas were established by the National Innovation Council.5 In turn, the programs within each area were defined by a public– private sectoral council, considering the specific skill shortages and requirements of each sector. These mechanisms guaranteed that the skills acquired abroad were pertinent and relevant for the selected economic clusters.

Ensuring Academic Quality of Beneficiaries and Host Institutions Abroad Safeguarding high levels of academic excellence was a key concern, especially considering the magnitude of the expansion in the number of scholarships awarded by the BCP. Priority areas were categorized into three groups: (1) Economic: mining, aquaculture, food, tourism, and global services; (2) Transversal platforms: energy, environment, information and communications technologies (ICTs), and biotechnology; and (3) Social: education, health, housing, public safety, and public policy. 5 The National Innovation Council was created in 2005. It is an advisory council to the President of Chile. It is constituted by diverse members from the private sector, academia, and public sector (including the Ministers of Finance, Economy, Education, and Agriculture). 4

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

235

To achieve this goal, a series of measures was implemented. First, the assessment and selection process of students was completely carried out by external (non-governmental) experts from each discipline. In total, more than 650 evaluators worked in approximately 30 disciplinary commissions in charge of the assessment of each applicant. Second, each applicant was assessed by two different anonymous evaluators, which provided a final score. This evaluation considered both the academic records and work experience of each candidate, and the quality of the program and the institution of study. The latter assessed as a combination of (1) the position of the institution of study in international rankings (Shanghai and Times Rankings), and (2) the evaluation of the program of study by each area expert. As a result of these measures, the percentage of postgraduate students enrolled in higher education institutions ranked within the top 200 (Shanghai ranking— ARWU) increased rapidly from a previous average level of 44 percent to 58 percent during the period 2008–2009 (González and Recart, 2010).

Promoting Social Inclusion: Widening the Participation of Students with Non-traditional Backgrounds Widening the participation of students with non-traditional backgrounds was a fundamental objective of the BCP. To accomplish this purpose, efforts were made to provide information and application support, to include an affirmative action policy in the selection process, and to provide free language courses for selected students. The government signed a series of international agreements with universities and foreign agencies to provide better information and special support to non-traditional students. Information about institutions and programs of study in each discipline was made available, among other activities, through roadshows throughout the country each year. Also, application processes to study abroad were simplified in a joint effort with foreign partner universities. Complementarily, additional bonus points were given to traditionally underrepresented groups: students from regions outside the capital city, students with special needs, indigenous students, and also women, were given special consideration. Also, pregnant students were offered a four-month maternity leave stipend to support them while studying abroad, thus reducing the chances of attrition. Female participation increased from a previous average level of approximately 33 percent to 46 percent as a consequence of these policies. Finally, free English, French, and German courses were delivered to students who lacked adequate language proficiency. These were especially targeted towards students from low economic backgrounds.6 Originally, a progressive feature of this support scheme was that the scholarship evaluation process did not require applicants to be already accepted by institutions abroad or have a certain level of language proficiency. This requirement would have left most bright students from lower economic groups out of the competition. Consequently, the BCP encouraged these students to apply for the scholarship and assessed them on their academic merit, supporting them in their Three measures were implemented in order to target public resources and the language courses to students from low socio-economic backgrounds. First, each applicant had to fill a registration form including socio-economic background information, which was later confirmed by the National Tax Office. Second, students were classified according to their socio-economic background. Finally, those coming from the first four quintiles of income, received the corresponding courses for free. Those coming from the fifth quintile were asked to pay a proportion of the total cost of the course. 6

236

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

applications to foreign institutions, and helping them reach the necessary language thresholds required by their university of destination.

Increasing Benefits, While Reducing Costs The BCP scholarships comprise a series of monetary benefits that tend to be rather similar across different programs of study. Most grants include: air tickets, provision for reallocation, health insurance, and an allowance for books (Table 15.6). As mentioned previously, language courses and pre- and postnatal leave are also included for programs lasting more than twelve months. Additionally, it provides a monthly stipend adjusted according to the living costs of the country of destination. This stipend (USD 1,500) is comparable to that provided by Colombia (USD 1,600) and the United Kingdom’s Chevening Scholarship (USD 1,400). It is higher than the Mexican CONACYT scholarship (USD 1,000) but considerably lower than the UAE scholarship, which can reach up to approximately USD 3,800 in the case of married PhD students. Finally, the BCP scholarships cover 100 percent of the tuition and fees, contrasting with other international programs, such as the Chinese State-Sponsored Study Abroad Program (SSSAP), which only covers living costs and air tickets, expecting host institutions to assume the remaining costs. As a result of this policy, and in order to make this program costeffective and sustainable, the Chilean government signed several international agreements obtaining considerable tuition and fee reductions conferred by foreign institutions.

Improving the Institutional Framework The implementation of the BCP required a reorganization of the institutional framework. The new structure ensured the existence of a strategic steering board and the consolidation of numerous scattered pre-existing programs. At the policy level, the President created the Ministers Council for Advanced Human Capital Formation7 (MCAHC), responsible

TABLE 15.6 Average BCP benefits Monthly Stipend

US $1,500 (Adjuster by cost of living)

Tuition and fee

100 percent (after discounts offered by institutions)

Books and study materials

US $300 (per year)

Arrivals allocation

US $500

Spouse allocation

US $500

Allocation per child traveling

10 percent of Recipient’s monthly stipend

Health insurance

Up to US $800

Recipient’s air fare

100 percent

Traveling family’s air fares

100 percent

Language course

English, French, or German

Pre- and Postnatal leave

4 months

Source: Becas Chile Program. www.becaschile.cl

7 The MCAHC was constituted by the Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Education, Economy, Social Planning, and the President of the National Innovation Council.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

237

for defining the policy goals and general implementation guidelines. At the coordination level, an Executive Secretariat was formed in charge of: (1) providing reliable research and policy proposal to the MCAHC; (2) coordinating the implementation of the MCAHC’s decisions, guidelines, and implementation plans; (3) promoting international agreements to reduce tuition costs and obtain free language courses abroad; and (4) acting as a clearing-house or “one-stop-shop” for applications and information. At the implementation level, four different public agencies were responsible for the everyday management of the different scholarship programs (candidate evaluation, expert commissions, payment of benefits, beneficiary follow-up, etc.), according to the type of beneficiary served. Postgraduate students were managed by the National Commission of Scientific and Technological Research. Vocational Education students were managed by the Higher Education Division of the Ministry of Education (MoE). Teacher Training scholarship holders were served by the Teacher Training Division (CEPEIP) and Open Doors Program, both at the Ministry of Education. Although each institution independently managed its scholarships, they had to follow the policy and implementation guidelines established by the MCAHC and coordinated by the Executive Secretariat. Although, since its creation in 2008, each new government administration has introduced changes, many of the main strategic pillars remain the same after a decade, providing Chile with a large amount of highly trained professionals to address the country’s challenges, working in government, academia, and the private sector.

INTERMEDIATE ACTORS: PRIVATE ALLIANCES AND NETWORKS PROMOTING INTERNATIONALIZATION There are several networks and alliances of higher education institutions that promote internationalization as part of their main objectives. These organizations are mainly focused on promoting international cooperation to share good practices. However, in some cases, they carry out actions to effectively insert tertiary institutions in the international arena by promoting their international recognition. The most important organization in this sphere is the Chilean Council of University Rectors (CRUCh), which gathers the heads of twenty-nine Chilean universities. Currently, CRUCh has linked and established academic cooperation with Germany (HRK and DAAD), Australia (Memorandum of Understanding with the Go8 Group), Belgium (Program for PhD students to carry out stays and double degrees), Bolivia (Cooperation Agreement with CEUB), Brazil (Cooperation Agreement with CRUB), Canada, Colombia, Spain (Agreement with Carolina Foundation; Framework agreement for University collaboration with CRUE), Finland, France (Framework Agreement of Academic Collaboration with CPU), Italy (Framework Agreement of University cooperation with CRUI), Poland, Hungary, and Argentina (CRUCh, 2019a). On the other hand, to gain international recognition of Chilean higher education, CRUCh developed and implemented the transferable credit system (SCT) within the framework of MECESUP 2. This action seeks to measure, quantify, and distribute the academic work of students among various curricular activities that make up their syllabus. This system is intended to foster the validation and recognition of the academic activities abroad by Chilean students, and also of those in Chile by international students (CRUCh, 2019b). Other inter-institutional organizations also play an important role in the internationalization of tertiary education. These institutional groupings encourage

238

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

networking between higher education institutions to promote cooperation and share good practices. For instance, the interuniversity development center (CINDA) offers a University exchange program for undergraduate and graduate students, academics, and managers, among other international activities (CINDA, 2019). Another example is provided by Universia, an online center of information regarding academic exchange opportunities and postgraduate studies available to Chilean students in foreign institutions (UNIVERSIA, 2019). Similarly, LearnChile is a network composed of twenty-seven Chilean higher education institutions that share the goal of increasing the internationalization of Chilean higher education and promoting the country as a destination for international students (LearnChile, 2019).

INSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS ON THE GROUND: STRATEGIES PROMOTED BY INDIVIDUAL HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS Beyond the critical support provided national institutions, Chilean higher education institutions have increasingly taken internationalization into their own hands. They have extended this phenomenon to different dimensions, such as institutional planning, evaluation, generation of networks, student and staff mobility, curriculum design, development of joint/double degrees, research, and innovation activities, among others. As a result, while before the 1990s less than 5 percent of HEI formally included “internationalization” as part of their institutional development plans, by the mid-2000s more than 70 percent did so (Ramirez et al., 2004). To analyze and characterize bottom-up internationalization strategies being developed by individual leading Chilean higher education institutions, we used the following strategy. First, we used international rankings, specifically the Times Higher Education (THE) ranking related to “international outlook” and the QS ranking devoted to “international research networks,” to identify the most active institutions in this sphere. Second, we characterized the internationalization strategies of these top institutions, through a review of their websites and other publicly available information. Finally, we briefly describe in more depth the multi-annual institutional internationalization plans recently developed by three leading institutions. As just mentioned, there are several rankings that prove useful to assess the level of internationalization of top national universities. The Times Higher Education (THE) ranking and the QS ranking include two indicators to evaluate this dimension. The THE ranking measures “international outlook,” which considers the capacity of a university to attract international students and staff, and carry out international collaboration in research. The result of this exercise is shown below (Table 15.7). On the other hand, the QS indicator, “international research networks,” indicates the level of international collaboration in research. The result of this exercise is shown below (Table 15.8). Once we had identified top-level universities concerning internationalization, we proceeded to review eight selected universities, to identify through their publicly available information resources what actions they were performing to insert themselves in the international sphere. The selected universities respond to the following criteria: five were included because they were present in both rankings among the top ten institutions in terms of

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

239

TABLE 15.7 THE ranking—International outlook for Chilean universities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pontifical Catholic University of Chile Adolfo Ibáñez University Federico Santa María Technical University University of Chile Catholic University of the North University of the Andes, Chile Austral University of Chile University of Valparaíso Diego Portales University University of Desarrollo

92.3 88.8 87.6 80.6 78.0 74.0 73.9 73.1 72.9 72.4

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on THE (2019).

TABLE 15.8 QS ranking—International research network 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

University of Chile Pontifical Catholic University of Chile University of Concepción Austral University of Chile University of de Santiago de Chile Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso Andrés Bello University University of Valparaíso University of Tarapacá Federico Santa María Technical University

100 99.8 98.2 91.5 88.4 85.8 85.7 84.6 84.2 84.0

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on QS (2019).

internationalization (University of Chile, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Austral University of Chile, University of Valparaíso, Federico Santa María Technical University). The University of Concepción was considered based on its high score in the QS ranking. Two additional universities were selected to include newer (post-1980s) private universities, i.e., Adolfo Ibáñez University and Andrés Bello University, which appear quite high in the internationalization rankings.

Institutional Internationalization Strategies and Activities: General Synthesis Based on the information synthesized in Table 15.9, it is possible to conclude that internationalization strategies are strongly targeted towards providing students with opportunities to study abroad through the provision of a foreign language course, student exchange programs, and double degrees agreements. With some exceptions, there are also activities aimed at supporting academic mobility, joint research, and international dissemination of activities. However, it should be noted that internal financial support for research tends to be weak, even though joint international collaboration is relatively common. A possible explanation for this apparent contradiction resides in the fact that many institutions have specialized offices that provide strategic support to academics to help them successfully apply to external funds. Finally, very few institutions have campuses beyond Chilean borders, UTFSM and UAI being exceptions to this rule.

240

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 15.9 Institutional internationalization strategies University

UC UCHILE UTFSM UV UACh UdeC UAI UNAB

Foreign language courses Student exchange Double degrees Academic mobility Joint international research Internal funds to carry out international research International dissemination activities International branch campuses

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ x

✓ ✓ ✓ x x x

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ x

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ x ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

x

✓

✓

✓

✓

X

x

✓

x

x

x

✓

x

Source: Authors’ elaboration based information publicly available on institutional websites.

INSTITUTIONAL INTERNATIONALIZATION PLANS: A DEEPER EXAMINATION INTO NATIONAL LEADING UNIVERSITIES One of the main instruments used by institutions to plan, manage, and expand their operations lies on their multi-annual strategic plan. In this section, we briefly analyze the strategic plan of three top-level institutions, which consider internationalization a key lever. The Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (PUC), in its 2015–2020 development plan, includes as one of its key pillars “internationalization to participate in a global world.” Based on this strategic pillar, PUC incorporates internationalization at the core of its institutional project, setting specific goals, which include adopting international quality standards in teaching and research. Among the main objectives for the institution are: promoting international research, improving and extending networking with international organizations, and reinforcing and increasing student mobility. Specifically, among the proposed activities to achieve these goals is the creation of a graduate school to achieve the diversification of the range of doctoral studies available and to increase the possibility of exchange and mobility for postgraduate students. Another goal is the implementation of an institutional strategy, focused on internationalization that includes the entire academic community. Similarly, the University of Chile, in its 2017–2026 institutional development plan includes as a key strategic objective, promoting internationalization “to respond to the new local, regional, and global challenges.” Focusing on this goal, the University of Chile aims to become a leader in Latin America and in international networks. The institution proposes promoting exchange experiences and establishing research and training cooperation for undergraduate and graduate students, to produce social impact at the global level. It seeks to achieve excellence in teaching, research, and creativity to generate public engagement, as well as to tackle current national and international challenges. Finally, it aims to establish an institutional strategy for internationalization. The 2016–2022 University of Concepción’s strategic plan is coherent with the previously mentioned plans. Although it doesn’t have a specific pillar related to internationalization, this dimension is included across the strategic plan to achieve international standards. The University of Concepción seeks to increase international mobility and research cooperation, strengthen alliances with foreign institutions, create

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

241

international research groups, and achieve greater visibility worldwide. On the whole, the three cases show that universities, at least the top-level ones, consider internationalization as a key component of their long-run growth and development strategies. They develop plans and activities in this field with a clear objective of meeting international standards that will allow them to improve their international reputation, better their position in international rankings, and make them more competitive globally. In fact, in their plans, all three institutions express concern regarding their positions in international academic ranking.

FINAL REMARKS AND PROJECTIONS As we have shown throughout this chapter, internationalization is clearly in the agendas of Chile’s government agencies’ bearing on the development of higher education and research, the associations of universities, and the institutions of higher education themselves. Of course, in as much as the intensity of internationalization depends on the magnitude of funding, institutions with better access to resources tend to appear as leaders of internationalization. Yet interesting projects can be found, amongst less wealthy institutions, to carry out internationalization at home initiatives, typically organized around the curriculum of study programs. Moreover, as today the majority of university faculty with PhDs are still trained abroad, an international perspective is the default outlook of university professors across Chilean universities. The relatively small size of Chile’s research community is also a feature that could be playing in favor of international collaboration, as seen in the high proportion of articles published by Chilean scholars in co-authorship with international scholars. Larger scholarly communities, as those of the United States or Brazil, can more easily find research partners within their countries’ borders. A promising avenue of further progress in internationalization is inter-university collaboration. An example can be gleaned from the most recent (post MECESUP) generation of Chile’s policy instruments for strategic development of universities. In the terms of reference for these projects, the Ministry of Education asked for proposals that would favor “the formation of advanced human resources with masters and doctoral degrees in disciplinary and interdisciplinary areas and research programs and centres with the greatest potential for knowledge management.” The internationalization plans were to address, at a minimum, a) strategic alliances with national and international institutions of high reputation to develop joint programs and projects, b) recruitment of foreign graduate students, c) academic and student incoming and outgoing mobility (MINEDUC, 2015). The proposals presented by the University of Chile and the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, albeit largely independent from one another, did consider one joint objective: to disseminate globally the work of advanced research centers in both universities (Universidad de Chile, 2015; Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 2015). At the level of public policy, a shortcoming of Chile’s efforts in advanced human capital formation has been a lack of articulation between the growing supply of Chileans trained at PhD level—both at home and abroad—and the stagnant demand of those researchers by universities and business firms alike. It is not that universities do not need or want new researchers. The problem is that they do not have the openings to hire them. On the one hand, the higher education system has ceased to grow in size, and expansion of faculty positions based on increased tuition revenues from greater enrollment—the main driver of a vibrant academic labor market for thirty years—has come to a halt. On the other

242

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

hand, replacement of senior faculty is expensive, as retirement is not mandatory and therefore incentives for retirement need to be offered to senior staff (Bernasconi, 2018). Additionally, business is hardly an employment option, since only 10 percent of PhDs in Chile are employed outside of academia or the government (Comisión, 2015). A labor market crunch for doctors is looming large, unless universities are supported by public policy to expand their faculty cadres. In other words, some of the potential benefits of an internationalized human capital cohort may be lost for lack of opportune attention to the demand side of the equation. The lesson is obvious: the needs and perspectives of the end employers of internationalization initiatives cannot be absent from the analysis when it comes to investment in internationalization. We too readily and perhaps naively assume that internationalization is always a boon and a profitable investment, forgetting that internationalization is only as good as the advantages it creates for a receptive environment in which it can blossom.

REFERENCES Bellei, C., Cabalín, C., and Orellana, V. (2014). The 2011 Chilean student movement against neoliberal educational policies. Studies in Higher Education, 39(3): 426–440. Bernasconi, A. (2018). Desafíos de futuro de la educación superior chilena. In Ignacio Sánchez, D. (ed.), Ideas en educación II. Definiciones en tiempos de cambios. Santiago: Ediciones de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, pp. 345–373. Bernasconi, A. (2019). Chile: The challenges of free college. In Delisle, J.D., and Usher, A. (eds), International Perspectives in Higher Education. Balancing Access, Equity and Cost. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Education Press, pp. 109–128. CINDA (2019). Centro interuniversitario de desarrollo. Available at: https://cinda.cl/ CNA (2019). Comision Nacional de Acreticacion. Chile. Available at: https://www.cnachile.cl/ Paginas/Inicio.aspx CNID (2016). Lineamientos para una Politica nacional de centros de investigacion. Docuemnto de trabajo no. 3. Available at: http://www.cnid.cl/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/informe_ politicas_ci_6.pdf Comisión Presidencial Ciencia para el Desarrollo de Chile. (2015). Un sueño compartido para el futuro de Chile. Informe a la Presidenta de la República, Michelle Bachelet. Available at: http://www.cnid.cl/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Informe-Ciencia-para-el-Desarrollo.pdf CONICYT (2019). Comisión Nacional de Acreditación. Available at: https://www.conicyt.cl CRUCh (2019a). Consejo de Rectores de Chile. Internacionalización. Available at: https:// consejoderectores.cl/c_internacionalizacion CRUCh (2019b). Sistema de Créditos Transferibles. Available at: https://sct-chile. consejoderectores.cl/que_es_sct_chile.php González, J., and Recart, M.O. (2010). Becas Chile: Advanced Human Capital for the Knowledge Society. Centre of Public Studies (in Spanish). LearnChile. (2019). Learn Chile. Available at: https://www.learnchile.cl/ MERCOSUR (2019). Sistema de Acreditación Regional de Carreras Universitarias de los Estados Partes del MERCOSUR y Estados Asociados. Retrieved from: Memorándum de entendimiento sobre la creación e implementación de un sistema de acreditación de carreras universitarias para el reconocimiento regional de la calidad académica de las respectivas titulaciones en MERCOSUR y Estados Asociados, September 2019. Available at: http://edu. mercosur.int/es-ES/programas-e-projetos/25-mercosur-educativo/57-arcusul.html

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

243

MINEDUC (2015) Decreto Supremo N° 200 de 2015 del Ministerio de Educación que reglamenta la ejecución de la asignación presupuestaria “Internacionalización de universdades.” Available at: http://dfi.mineduc.cl/usuarios/MECESUP/File/2016/otrosinstrumentos/internacionalizacion/ ReglamentoInternacionalizacionDS2002015.pdf OECD (2010). Chile’s International Scholarship Programme, Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: OECD . OECD (2019). International student mobility. Available at: https://stats.oecd.org/ Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (2015). Plan trienal de Internacionalización de la P. Universidad Católica de Chile en postgrado e investigación: 2015–2018. Fondo de internacionalización de universidades. Ministerio de Educación. Available at: http://dfi. mineduc.cl/usuarios/MECESUP/File/2016/otrosinstrumentos/internacionalizacion/ PUC1566.pdf QS (2019). QS Latin America Ranking 2019. Available at: https://www.topuniversities.com/ university-rankings/latin-american-university-rankings/2019 Ramírez, M., Delgado, J., and Espitia, M. (2004). Destino de las inversiones españolas: Países industriales vs países en desarrollo. Revista de Economía Aplicada, 12(34): 127–139. Scopus (2019). Scimago Journal and Country Rank. Country comparison. Available at: https:// www.scimagojr.com/comparecountries.php SIES (2019a). Institutiones de educación superior vigentes. Junio 2019. Available at: https:// www.mifuturo.cl/instituciones-de-educacion-superior-en-chile/ SIES (2019b). Informe matrícula 2019 en educación superior en Chile. Ministerio de Educación. Servicio de información de educación superior. June 2019. Available at: https:// www.mifuturo.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Informe-Matricula-2019_SIES-1.pdf SIES (2019c). Informe sobre matrícula de estudiantes extranjeros en educación superior. Matrícula 2018. Ministerio de Educación. Servicio de información de educación superior. August 2019. Available at: https://www.mifuturo.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/informe_ extranjeros_en_educacion_superior_en_chile_matricula_2018_agosto_2019.pdf THE (2019). Times Higher Education World University Ranking 2019. Available at: https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking UNESCO (2019). Global Flow of Tertiary-Level Students: http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-studentflow UNIVERSIA. (2019). Universia Chile. Retrieved from Estudiar: https://www.universia.cl/ estudiar-extranjero Universidad de Chile (2015). Consolidación de la internacionalización de la investigación y postgrado de la Universidad de Chile. Fondo de internacionalización de universidades. Ministerio de Educación. Available at: http://dfi.mineduc.cl/usuarios/MECESUP/File/2016/ otros-instrumentos/internacionalizacion/UCH1566.pdf

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Colombian Higher Education Internationalization and Social Sustainable Development From Meaning to Practice GIOVANNI ANZOLA-PARDO

Globalization will affect national democracy insofar as certain issues, such as the environment and current economic crisis, cannot be solved at the national level alone but require a concerted international effort. Democracy, like national sovereignty, will then lose importance concerning the benefit of non-denominational, global power; hence the importance of democratizing globalization. — Boutros Boutros-Ghali, UNESCO, 2009

OUTLINE Education is perhaps the most crucial aspect of today’s knowledge society. This vital foundation plays a role in the founding of societal principles, the development of science and technology, and the broader establishment and dissemination of knowledge. Education also serves as a bond between learning, occupation, and prosperity; it allows the modeling of an individual’s conduct and, therefore, becomes a flagship to recreate current and social scenarios. Finally, yet importantly, education fulfills the purpose of generating permanent societal movements, leading societies to deeper stages of evolution. Classically, education systems comprehend a broad range of protocols, policies, and quality mechanisms in elementary, secondary, and higher levels of education. Undoubtedly, this framework varies by country and is expected to be aligned with national conditions (e.g., historical, cultural, and political). 244

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

245

In this tenor, quality education is a shared concern worldwide, and Internationalizing higher education (HE) may become an answer to common difficulties in several educational systems. It is considered that internationalization efforts contribute to the quality and richness of teaching and learning. According to Van Der Wende (2001), in Shutina (2008: 63), academic rationales to improve the quality of education became especially prevalent in the 1980s. In this regard, alleged concerns by universities began to focus on consolidating accurate planning and quality assurance regulations, ensuring career development pathways, reinforcing partnerships between organizations, associating research and knowledge transfer, and Internationalizing. In the Colombian framework, the internationalization of HE (IHE) has led to several limitations because of the educational apparatus. On the one hand, institutions attempt to integrate world dynamics into the existing national structure to increase the pertinence and quality of education. On the other hand, Colombia is undergoing a series of political, economic, and social transformations, where institutions struggle to reconsider national identity while coping with international demands. Otherwise, accepting who possesses the intellectual property resultant of Internationalizing an institution is an issue to be agreed upon by several stakeholders. This acceptance is also related to the following: The globalization and internationalization of universities have altered how HE is perceived in developing regions such as Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in Colombia. In this sense, universities’ growth is deeply dependent on policymaking, institutional planning, and the use of technologies of information, and these factors are connected to the proper local usage thereof, and answer the need of well-trained individuals who require the knowhow to adapt them, and, consequently, to narrow disproportions within their contexts. The aforementioned elements require additional in-depth debates for consensus in such regions. The increasing breadth and depth of knowledge dissemination pose both challenges and opportunities for Colombian social advancement. New forms of accessing knowledge mainly support the opportunities and the type of resources necessary to operate such knowledge for social cohesion. This phenomenon unavoidably leads to the pursuit of new means of understanding societal representativeness to increase people’s proficiency. One such means is to question the connection between societal necessities and academia in Colombia. Hence, this chapter presents an overview of the current strains between improving the current institutional positions while fulfilling national and international standards in the search for appropriate instruction—necessary for social cohesion and advancement— within the actual, multifaceted Colombian context. The nexus of IHE with Colombian social development (Anzola-Pardo, 2018) is also referred to and elucidated through this chapter. Based on the aforementioned insights, this chapter presents how Colombian HE institutions (HEIs) have worked in explicit and embedded internationalization schemes. However, such schemes have focused on operative activities rather than raising awareness regarding more extensive social theories, such as the implications for Colombia’s development. Jaramillo (2005) stated that the internationalization of Colombian HE was still in an “emerging stage,” and today that statement is still true. Jaramillo posited that Colombian universities have traditionally looked inward, rather than looking outward to explore new means of working in a borderless academic world (Jaramillo, 2005: 179).

246

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Jaramillo also posited that internationalization in Colombia is merely based on issues related to operational actions such as the mobility of students and staff, the signing of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with universities abroad, and, finally, infusing the learning of foreign language acquisition. In the literature, no evidence has been presented on the nexus of internationalization and a social development approach. Jaramillo concluded that HEIs’ activities were not connected to institutional policies; additionally, Jaramillo (2005) stated that the units in charge of internationalization within institutions are usually administrative workplaces that function in a “dispersed way.” Thus, this chapter examines the nexus of societal configuration and Colombian universities’ mission statements through internationalization. Regarding the anticipation of doubt, importance is not based on the role of an institution to regard social advancement exclusively but on Internationalizing HE as a vector1 for Colombia’s social advancement and denoting that it could be used to provide purpose and direction in general and to education, more specifically. The latter means that HE systems must aim at the same solutions of societal problems within an international understanding according to positions and contexts (Anzola-Pardo, 2018: 218). Likewise, the following must be highlighted: HE internationalization “theories” and “pragmatism” have not been the subject of a dialogue based on development studies in Colombia.

INTRODUCING THE CONTEMPORARY COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION APPROACH Hermanowicz (2014) suggested that a contemporary university—through research, teaching, and public service—can make a significant impact on students, faculty, and researchers that influences the social framework. Therefore, the shift in global-setting burdens should result in universities rethinking education and its role in creating a new social reality (Searle, 2010). In this sense, Kobayashi (1986) stated that one of the general characteristics of contemporary education is that within the scope of national training, each country is responsible for educating its inhabitants. This obligation, coupled with permanent changes in society, creates a unique objective: renovate the ever-growing Internationalizing of universities and the related wider dissemination of knowledge under globalization premises. In this respect, globalization has resulted in new views, models, and approaches. This phenomenon has facilitated the reassessment of how HE should adjust to an interconnected ecosphere of knowledge. Globalization has led to a globalized revolution; this notion is particularly notable because the globalized revolution was previously for only the elite domain in local or regional spheres. Notwithstanding such changes and the universality of information, universities in emerging nations regularly work in an isolated sphere of influence. For example, some nations have had difficulties in preparing academic staff to

In physics, a quantity that has both magnitude and direction. It is typically represented by an arrow whose direction is the same as that of the quantity and whose length is proportional to the quantity’s magnitude. Although a vector has magnitude and direction, it does not have a position. That is, as long as its length is not changed, a vector is not altered if it is displaced parallel to itself. Excerpted from www.britannica.com/topic/ vector-physics (accessed, July 2019).

1

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

247

improve university procedures. As stated by Gomez (2015), the academic exchange of individuals has always occurred; specifically, in the case of most of the countries in Latin America, and particularly Colombia, such activity has usually been based on the mobility of students. However, the latter has been circumscribed to economically privileged people. With globalization quickly affecting almost everybody in the twenty-first century, and with all the influence it has had in the markets over the last three decades, professions, associations, information flows, and investigations have gradually been globalized (CEPAL, 2016). Similarly, new associations, organizations, networks, and institutions have acted out, and the associations between them have been reinforced. Likewise, new openings for world interchanges have occurred; hence, the world is now a more intersected and cross-cutting place. Undoubtedly, introducing globalization in HEIs has enriched academic environments through a considerable exchange of information, but, more fundamentally, it has delivered a unique situation in which to rethink societies, namely, as communities that are more equitable and focused on development (Bertucci and Alberti, 2001). In the same sense, as the internationalization of universities increases worldwide, HEIs endeavor to renovate or adjust their policies and strategies to remain pertinent in their domain. This phenomenon suggests that the affiliation between HE internationalization and societal development may require the reconsideration of many aspects because of current economic challenges. The argument that is herein advanced is founded on whether the IHE is capable of acting as a “catalyst” (Hudzik, 2011) for societal advancement by introducing alternative points of view in national debates. In this sense, Berry and Taylor (2014) stated that Colombia is considering encompassing its worldwide profile at the university level, is coming out of a lengthy period of instability, and has demonstrated significant signs of progress in security. Conversely, universities considering internationalization must first overcome the perceptions of Colombia as a troubled nation. In this respect, IHE is, therefore, undeniably connected to the country’s socio-political conflict. In this respect, today, the drivers of Colombia’s societal progress are several political and economic limitations. The Colombian internal conflict, which has continued for over six decades, has disrupted the progress made because of the nation’s steady national plan. This conflict has produced geopolitical segregation and has permeated all types of interactions in every part of Colombian society. The evidence for the latter is high rates of poverty, famine, inequity, injustice, and corruption. The aforementioned associated phenomena have resulted in a process of social disintegration in Colombia, characterized by acute political and economic distress, uncertainty, and disbelief. Although Colombia’s development policy is considered in the National Development Plan, Restrepo (2004) argued that one of the main complications of the improvements to be conducted by the State is the impracticality of enduring a continuing progression that reassures a more consistent, wide-ranging development structure. After the completion of the negotiations between the Colombian government and outlaw forces—still in an awkward phase of implementation—the most crucial action proposed was placing a comprehensive plan on the national government’s agenda. In this regard, the access to quality education and social security, reinsertion of former combatants in civil society, fight against corruption, the implementation of technologies of information, creation of better labor opportunities for graduates, and more effective mechanisms of

248

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

social development, among other actions, must be prioritized by the central government. Nevertheless, growth from a perspective of HE connected to a development plan has been neither discussed nor determined. In the Colombian National Development Plan (NDP) 2018–2022, education is considered an influential mechanism to lead to social equity, especially in goals 1, 2, 3, and 16. The objectives of these goals are to improve coverage in early education, add more students to a unique-school-day model in public high schools, strengthen public HEIs, and double the public and private investment in science and technology. This plan is supposed to offer people new opportunities, permitting them to shift the cycle that prolongs poverty. Accordingly, improvements in HE are closely linked to the trajectory of national social development. An additional strategic feature in this analysis is the appropriate preparation of individuals by universities for competitiveness. This feature has been questioned: Do the current teaching approaches consider proper accessibility, qualifications, skills (e.g., communicative, soft and hard) and quality of education to guarantee their inputs to the innovation and further knowledge transfer? Such inputs must be linked with societal advancement in the sense that clusters of stakeholders may be able to formulate better intercessions for nurturing creative development and social unity. Structural competitiveness (OECD and World Bank, 2012) has resulted in a methodology that mainly covers economic categories, almost wholly avoiding social and political aspects involved in the promotion of competitiveness. This methodology is vital to consider in the context of local governments’ measurements of development principles that typically employ these categories. However, the current macroeconomic atmosphere aims to define and assess the stability, coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of policies as facilitators of development (not only from an economic stance). Such a structural parameter rules out other aspects of the complex social fabric, implying an imbalance among the sectors involved, including education. Welch (1998) stated that Internationalizing education presents opportunities, challenges, and concerns when addressing development, that is, in the sense that it may help produce new partnerships and knowledge transfer and raise the necessary technological improvements, for instance, to help the inner (re)structuring of society in social development policies for competition. In this sense, what is then understood is that the more new technologies are implemented, the more the countries gain sustainable and measurable socio-economic growth (Dahlman, 2007). In this tenet, scientific and technological progression is also considered a primary, distinctive feature that fixes the significance of an institution, especially a university. Therefore, the more that countries have substantial technological arrangements and inclusive research alliances with all of the society’s stakeholders (i.e., academics, administrations, businesses, communities, etc.), the more driven a nation may become in its effort to surpass inequity and impoverishment—as in the Colombian case. Finally, the academic output of a nation has a remarkable effect on the competitiveness of a state. The latter measures the development, efficiency, and viability of the educational and social continuum and the consolidation and influence in development. In this case, Internationalizing HE—and its distant relation to social engagement in Colombia—goes beyond simple “economic ideas” for social improvement in such analysis, even when they are typically pondered as part of the societal construct.

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

249

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN COLOMBIA According to Kehm and Teichler (2007), who addressed the international dimension of HE, one frequently matches mentions to only Western academicians. Another factor is that studies on the international aspect of HE have been more extensive in the United States. The dominance of academicians from other nations on this topic is, to some degree, because studies on the international spectrum of HE have been referenced in most other countries by an abridged number of specialists in this field. Precise, conducted research on the Latin American region can be credited to Gacel-Ávila (2007), even though supplementary mentions are restricted to local understandings. In summary, the allusions to Latin American authors have been scant. A careful analysis of the internationalization concept, to unmistakably affirm the nexus in the literature on the internationalization of HE in Colombia, found that the concept changes by the country, by the institution, and by the individuals. In some cases, the concept may be imprecise when defining it from a context stance. Callan (2000) raised this concern when explaining that the concept has been assumed and used in different ways since the Second World War. Analyses have shifted based on varying rationales and incentives for internationalization and the variable political and economic circumstances in which this theoretical construct is situated. Moreover, several meanings have resulted in terminology differences; de Wit (2002), in Shutina (2008), posited that the different concepts are used to denote a specific element within the broad field of “internationalization” and are used as synonyms for the overall term “internationalization.” As in the Colombian case, although internationalization is not a new topic, several revisions have been performed by the Colombian Ministry of Education, the network of accredited universities CCYK ® (MEN-CCYK, 2013), and the Colombian Institute for the Promotion of Higher Education (ICFES), in partnership with the Colombian Network for Internationalization of Higher Education (RCI), (ICFES, 2002). Jaramillo (2003; 2005) and Otálora (2009) have also conducted discipline-based studies. From a specific analytical perspective on international cooperation in science, technology, and innovation, work has been performed by agencies or networks such as RCI, ASCUN, and COLCIENCIAS. Uribe (2010) conducted a retrospective analysis of internationalization and presented several considerations to develop a “policy of opening up HE in Colombia.” Fernández (2011) highlighted the importance of policies for internationalization at public universities through mission statements on issues related to quality in teaching, research, and public service. Other discussions are contextualized internationally in the Third Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education and subsequent versions, held by the International Association of Universities (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2010), and a report by the OECD and the World Bank (2012) on HE in Colombia. The Colombian National Development Plan 2010–2014 (DNP, 2011) set a strategic goal to achieve democratic prosperity and international competitiveness of all economic sectors comprising education. Additionally, an explicit directive was given by the Ministry of National Education to build a project to promote the internationalization of HE, namely, to address quality assurance (CNA, 2013a, b). The IHE in Colombia has been characterized by the work of the Ministry of National Education and networks of universities such as CCYK and the RCI. However, no policy

250

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

on internationalization has been advanced, and institutions continue to work in isolation and in a dispersed manner. Nonetheless, a study on the indicators for the internationalization of HE (MEN-CCYK, 2013) clearly demonstrates that, nowadays, more institutions have structures in place and this component is more considered because of the relevance that the National Council of Accreditation (CNA) has implemented for accreditation purposes. This theme of internationalization has also been considered within the context of recent HE discussions, as led by the National Council for Higher Education (CESU). These dialogues have led to the issuance of several academic documents such as the Agreement for Higher Education—2034 (MEN, 2014: 13). This Agreement focuses on ten key aspects: inclusive education; quality and relevance; research (science, technology, and innovation, including social innovation); regionalization; articulation of secondary education to HE, job training and human development; university community and welfare; new educational methods; internationalization; and structural systems, governance and financial sustainability. Succeeding the Agreement was the publication Reflections on the policy of internationalization of higher education in Colombia (2014) by the Ministry of National Education and the Observatory of Science and Technology (MEN and OCyT, 2014). The academic book provides an in-depth overview of the country’s internationalization. Additionally, in 2016, the group of CCYK universities published a report that raised the importance of understanding security concerns associated with the mobility of students. The inbound mobility of United States’ students to Colombia presents a reality of the country different from the one perceived (connected to, e.g., war problems, drug trafficking, and kidnapping). In this respect, the international inbound mobility is presented as an aspect that directly affects the Colombian gross domestic product (GDP) and poses an opportunity for universities and the national government to work on a strategy for the visibility and promotion of HE internationally. Anzola-Pardo (2018) introduced a framework to understand the history and evolution of internationalization in the Colombian context (Table 16.1). This section reviewed the concept of internationalization of HE in the literature, including the Colombian cases. The investigation of Colombia is an attempt to understand the roots of the notion and instituting differences to explain the relationships between internationalization of HE and three other terms: international education, international rationales, and globalization. These terms are often employed interchangeably and in an overlying manner.

COMPLEXITY OF THE COLOMBIAN EDUCATIONAL SECTOR Colombian HEIs began to be created in response to the circumstances of urbanization and city expansion. Urbanism appeared late in Colombia, and in other countries of Latin America (Ramirez, 2011). The concept of the Colombian HE system is closely related to urbanization advancement in the country and the laicization of the State. Additionally, the creation of the university system does emphasize a single macroinstitution located in a city or capital. The history of public and private universities and institutions has been more connected to the concept of regional HEIs. In this tenet, heterogeneity in the quality of the degrees offered by HEIs is evidenced when contrasting the enrollment fees of institutions and programs with high-quality accreditation, which poses a rather concentrated and unequal setting for HE. Actually,

TABLE 16.1 The IHE: National ideological context and trends: an overview (Anzola-Pardo, 2018) Colombia Pre-1970

Post-1970

1980

251

• Formation • HE • Memoryof Office for internationalization based International influenced by education Education scholarship/ • Limited to manage cooperation with independence student/ developed of academic academic countries thought exchange • Napoleonic • Inflow of and international loans Model— international • National scientific/ vocational academic technology emphasis cooperation development is a • Difference driver for IHE between cooperation state/public and private (mainly Catholic); the latter emphasized general education, and the former was more professional directed • HRI mainly directed internally to South America and the United States

The 1990s

The 2000s

• Increase the country’s links to the global economy • Education internationalization follows rapid international economic cooperation • HEIs embrace internationalization • Internationalization of HE is driven by the quality of education considerations and institutional prestige

• • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Formation of Colombian Challenge your Knowledge Colombian Network for Internationalization of HE formed Consideration of internationalization of HEIs for financial gain A concern in HEIs that their internationalization will negatively affect national culture A rapid increase in international agreements—private institutions focus on student mobility and the public focuses on research collaboration Limited student mobility: in 2004 Latin America (4 percent) lagged behind Asia (45 percent), Europe (30 percent), Africa (11 percent), and North America (6 percent) Limited Latin American interregional mobility, and no intraregional systems for credit and qualification recognition (Gacel-Ávila, 2007) Almost an absence of the internationalization of the curricula Courses presented in English are rare, and more interaction with Spanish-speaking countries/institutions is necessary Advent and JP Morgan increase shares in HEIs Advent of new educational providers: International Apollo Group, Sylvan International, Oracle University Lack or limited number of HE internationalization policies HEI driven more by individuals than institutions No quality assurance programs for the internationalization process Limited HE internationalization budget Low level of professional qualifications of staff managing international offices and programs Limited integration of the International Office into university organizational structure Limited number of institutions consider internationalization as a strategic objective. Lack or underdeveloped internationalization strategy Rigid curriculum inhibits HE internationalization Project (2009–): Promoting the Internationalization of Higher Education by Colombian Ministry of National Education.

252

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

according to the National Higher Education Information System (SNIES, 2017), of the total number of official HEIs, 16 percent have high-quality accreditation and 40 percent of the institutions accredited at present in the country are public. According to the National Council of Accreditation, enrollment coverage in HEIs and accredited programs was 31 percent in 2014, coverage in accredited undergraduate programs was 19 percent, and coverage in graduate programs was 6 percent. Additionally, the results of the empirical exercise show that students’ economic and social conditions considerably affect the quality of the HE structure in terms of the academic outputs of the different HEIs and the careers offered by them. From a government viewpoint, quality is necessary. The goal is to benefit youngsters regardless of their places of origin or political, economic, social, and cultural situation and deliver opportunities to gain knowledge and expertise in a particular field and to improve the aptitudes and values necessary to live, coexist, be productive, and keep learning throughout their lives (MEN, 2010). However, the OECD and World Bank (2012) have remarked on the low performance of Colombia throughout recent years, which is the causality of an educational apparatus incapable of offering high-quality education for all. Indications of this are the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment exams2 and, currently, this statement is still factual. However, the OECD and the World Bank have established numerous assets in Colombian HE, for example: ●

Significant increase in coverage over the last ten years

●

Diverse institutional landscape

●

Complete and coherent national planning and policy formulation

●

●

Robust support for equity and a student loan agency that is among the best in the world, and Wide-ranging and cutting-edge assessment systems and a guarantee to engage in data-based decision making.

These assets will be more successful and valuable as the reform agenda progresses (OECD, 2015: 14). Notably, notwithstanding the institutional improvements and the increase in coverage rates, there remains an extensive heterogeneity in the quality of the programs accessible in Colombia at its universities and institutions, the disparity in access to HE programs, and the rare supply of quotas. Such heterogeneity has effects within institutions (and society, consequently) that are presented in these ways: ● ●

●

●

Equitable access to quality education and employment rates Successful access from pre-primary to tertiary levels of education, enhancing staff capacities An increase in the hours of instruction, and efficient evaluations of student and teacher performances Education results and employment chances, and

The Programme for International Student Assessment is a triennial international survey that evaluates education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. According to this organization, Colombia performs below the OECD average in science; its degraded performance increased 28 score points since 2006, the second-largest improvement among the 52 education systems with comparable data (accessed July 2, 2017. www.oecd.org).

2

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION ●

253

Successful quality of staff in schools, and evading the occurrence of two- or even three-shift schools.

This list of considerations is also observed in the reports of the OECD in the following sense: Education in Colombia is advancing, but challenges remain. Enrolment has increased at pre-primary, secondary and tertiary levels, yet few students attend school before the age of six and many drop out after age fifteen. Only about half of 17–19-year-old secondary graduates go on to tertiary level studies. Improving the quality of education and ensuring that all students (particularly the most disadvantaged ones) achieve at least minimum skill levels will be essential for Colombia’s long-term economic and social development. Additionally, increasing the relevance of education systems and training programmes in the labour market are determinants to reduce unemployment and foster well-being. —OECD, 2015: 22

COLOMBIAN LABOR AND TALENT DEMAND IN A GLOBALIZED ECONOMY From its early stages in 1989, Colombia accomplished remarkable progress in terms of GDP growth and per capita income in a framework of relative constancy for some years mainly because of the low levels of uncontainable inflation and few developments in trade variation. The plan was based on the use of the “substitution model” endorsed by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL). Its central idea was to defend the domestic production required to be accompanied by state policy to offer businesspersons low-interest loans to subsidize in-house production. Currently, industrial sector investment is measured as a critical part of the modernization of the domestic economy by reintroducing equipment and a distinct change in the business culture in different companies. Consistent with the national agency to promote investment in the country (Invest in Colombia), and because of trade arrangements, Colombia has become a distribution, production, and export hub for international marketplaces. In this sense, companies’ networking increases the capacity for innovation and technological development in businesses and activates their productivity and competitiveness (Kahn and Ghani, 2004). Local commerce has a propensity to expand companies’ talent management scheme, in line with the countries’ progress engines, modernization, originality of the service of production lines, social responsibility, and commitment to advance fair trade. In this sense, the literature has exposed that talent management can offer noteworthy information on the best conditions for local customs, labor markets, and workforce guidelines across nations to integrate with adequate performance and new means to do business at the global level (Ray, 2012). Hence, socio-economic growth in Colombia is mainly influenced by the level of deliberate adjustment that local companies may have to adjust themselves to underpinning global demographic changes in talent attainment and retention. Correspondingly, and according to the survey for Development and Technological Innovation published by the National Administrative Department of Statistics, the limited

254

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

information on available technology, absence of skilled personnel, and ambiguity in the success of the technical implementation of projects are some of the limitations of the Colombian manufacturing sector when attempting to mobilize companies to change their culture, attitude, and investment priorities (DANE, 2014). In Colombia, economic progress has two economic elements that must be reflected: the current inflow of new foreign investment in the mining and petroleum sectors predominantly (Uribe, 2010), and that this economic growth has also been defined by the current local market based on beverages, food, agriculture, petroleum, footwear, mechanical equipment and transportation, livestock, floriculture, mining, chemical and textile industries (DANE, 2014). The Colombian trading segment has also experienced a primary conversion. Many multinational businesses have established offices in the country and have appealed to customers and the workforce by expanding their services and announcing new brands in the country. One such case is the introduction of French, Chilean, and Portuguese franchises with an investment of nearly US$5,000 million in five years (Semana, 2012). Colombia has proven to be an attractive country for foreign direct investment because of its political stability, competitive advantage, and economic growth over the last ten years. Hence, competition and new openings for socio-economic growth have a favorable position. Accordingly, local businesses must prepare their labor force with precise skills and abilities for such inbound competition, which means filling the gap between skills mismatched for better occupation opportunities, particularly within a global dynamic, where national and global competition are dissimilar but feed into each other (Marginson, 2006). When referring to an access-based source of advantage, Ma (1999: 262) states that “a firm enjoys competitive advantages over rivals because it has more superior access to the factor markets, i.e. resource input (Barney, 1986), and/or product market, i.e. customers (Porter, 1980) than do rivals or it has such access that is not at all available to rivals.” As aforementioned, the competition in trading activities endures the conversion to a more challenging arena, particularly when domestic talent is inclined to move to labor opportunities with more stable works and superior incomes (Dewhurst, Pettigrew, and Srinivasan, 2012).

COLOMBIA’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT According to HAYS (2013), approximately 97 percent of the occupied inhabitants in Colombia have earnings below US$2,500 monthly. Nonetheless, the qualified uppermiddle class and middle class, which cluster in the higher levels of schooling, are in high demand in the labor sector. Thus, there is a vast revenue gap in the country concerning education and development, and this clarifies the reality of the pull-out of Colombia in the international arena, and that can encourage satisfactory development (in terms of structure development, regional development, knowledge democratization, labor environment, job opportunities, justice, equity, and peace). In unison, in recent years, Colombia’s GDP has been in the top economies in the region, alongside Mexico and Brazil. Henceforth, such economic progress has affected the social and political characteristics vis-à-vis the type of promptness that might be necessary for Colombia to have equity, competitiveness, poverty alleviation, and a successful crusade against corruption by dint of education and societal development values to drive an agenda in national and international environments.

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

255

According to the National Department of Statistics (DANE), Colombia has generated satisfactory settings advancing firm economic advancement because of recent political and economic constancy and financial increases in the last ten years in its GDP. Swystun (2014) postulated that the dynamics of augmented growth are generating various opportunities locally to thrive in global setups with conceivable menaces in the employment of plans when going global. Hence, the impacts of Colombia’s increased variations (e.g., cultural, educational, political, and economic) must be examined by considering the effects and drawbacks in social development facets, especially political facets. Alternative aspects worth considering are the level of promptness that HE is supposed to have in a new competitive context to add value to the country’s socioeconomic advancement from the viewpoint of its internationalization.

HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The internationalization of HE, as a concept, and aforementioned, is understood from several approaches. As a field of study, HE has taken from historical analysis and several social science underpinnings. The internationalization of HE can now be the bond for a new type of socially sustained development approach based on a reviewed conception of the role of human beings on earth, with a compelling logic of accountability and repair. According to de Wit (2002; in Shutina, 2008: 52), “International education is frequently used in place of internationalization of HE, thus creating confusion.” De Wit (1999; 2002, in Shutina, 2008: 52) and Callan (2000) have advanced this argument by clarifying that it could be because of historical underpinnings. The concept of internationalization “carries different historical associations and hence different contemporary resonances in the United States, in Europe and other parts of the world” (Callan, 2000, in Shutina, 2008: 52). The opportunities for economic and social development for any country depend primarily on what can be done in the creation of scientific and technical collections to properly use available resources and to mend or change certain practices of the social junction by way of robust policies and long-term improvement plans. In this regard, if the internationalization of HE is not included in state policies, embracing HE as an instrument that might be a driver of other sectors of society is difficult, and not only in the context of the educational stance. In addition to the deductions drawn from macroeconomic groundings regarding the linkages between HE and socially sustainable development, the interconnections in a global and systemic role of education, development, and society are undisputable. Herein, the internationalization in HE will become the pillar for international knowledge dissemination and further development of a shared understanding of world society. In summary, reaching out to people through knowledge transfer and international education is essential, namely encouraging HEIs to prioritize the service of a global society understanding. HEIs must also overcome distinctiveness problems in teaching and research. Universities have been typically known as places to teach and perhaps as sources of political controversy but not as partners in development. Governments should view universities as engines of problem solving and of national development. Thinking can lead to innovations, original methodologies, or new types of governance.

256

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The OECD and World Bank (2012) have established that institutions integrating internationalization into their fields of operation and administration are likely to contribute to country-wide growth and innovation. They may be able to influence key areas of the world and global development. Innovation, priorities, and best practices must be from both institutions and governments to find ways to enhance and fund this process. Such a statement may imply that HEIs could then be considered by governments as partners in sustainable development to help address global leadership challenges in promoting solutions to problems that require immediate intervention beyond geopolitical boundaries. HEIs may collaboratively work to use joint-knowledge networks between governments, enterprises, and universities to leverage world competitiveness and attempt to be more active partners in cities, regions, or nations for problem solving by regarding sustainable development as a spearhead for social intervention. National competitiveness leads to increased interest in international off-shore campuses among some developing countries, for a combination of economic development and soft power reasons. Critical linkages between industry and government policy for fostering innovation are often lacking (OECD and World Bank, 2012). To counter common world problems, the United Nations has sponsored the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) to identify the main challenges for sustainable development from 2015 to 2030. The SDSN is an outreach organization that aims for the general membership of institutions of HE from around the world. Thus, an examination of the strategies to shape long-term transformative strategies is necessary to improve quality and achieve international standards for education at all levels, including elementary school, high school, and HE integration. The OECD calls for “connectedness” of the systems in the curricula from preschool through secondary education to develop students’ human capital to their fullest capacity in later stages of education.

SOCIALLY SUSTAINED HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION IN COLOMBIA Addressing the role of quality education in Colombia and in societies worldwide is a difficult task. IHE is not new but it influences and is a driver of current relations in the academic world because it challenges the status quo. HE introduces alternative means of thinking and questions the education model and its impacts on governance and management. HE will raise unexpected issues and anticipated benefits. All of these phenomena have a different impact, meaning, and import for institutions in countries of varying degrees of social or political development (OECD and World Bank, 2012). Henceforth, HEIs may leverage academic reflections to propel democracy, economic growth, opportunity, political participation, gender equality, human rights compliance, inclusion, and, ultimately, societal transformation to peace. Colombia is facing multiple challenges in its (post) conflict context. After sixty years of war, education must be strengthened and galvanized to address core concerns within Colombian society. Thus, an exploration of how to design successful policies must include and address minority groups, especially those affected by the conflict, such as women, indigenous peoples, and Afro-Colombians. The goal should be to position education as an agent for recovery,

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

257

inclusion, and development in the post-conflict context. Employing a democratization approach, policies should promote peacebuilding, including leadership and tactics, to promote gender and ethnic inclusion. Technology and communications have also become a means to facilitate access to education in remote areas, or as an alternative to increasing the availability of education resources by learning about some of the successful distance or technology-based academic and training programs in the HE Colombian case. The stakeholders to be encouraged in such intervention processes include education policymakers, researchers in education, government education advisers, education and/or training nongovernmental organizations’ (NGOs’) directors or representatives, and minority NGOs committed to serving their communities who can use the lessons learned for promoting social and economic inclusion in a promising scenario of a possible end to the longstanding internal armed conflict. In this sense, the following strategies could be used as relevant elements for discussion regarding how to address socially sustainable development through internationalization principles: ●

Enable sustainable career paths for Colombian professionals (including an international level)

●

Reinforce quality education to increase youth’s economic empowerment

●

Primary levels of education in a chain to succeed in HE internationally

●

Reflect on international education for sustainable competitiveness

●

Enable global (relevant) skills for sustainable intervention/action in development

●

Use technology to favor knowledge transfer for sustainable development actions

●

Stand up for education to promote socio-economic diversification

●

International service learning.

In this framework, a key articulator element is international curriculum development to implement relevant social teaching. The role of HE in building collective cohesion and sustainable peace in developing countries/emerging markets may be crucial for societal advancement by means of intentioned higher education internationalization. Based on the aforementioned ideas, the Yash Pal Committee Report on Higher Education (2009, in Tilak, 2010) has argued for more for rejuvenation of HE and the defragmentation of knowledge and care in the reliance on private university systems, even concerning internationalization. This report also favored less regulation of the universities by the government and stated, “universities should be self-regulating institutions” (Tilak, 2010: 63). Another means to increase social engagement is the participation in collective activities to reinforce social capital and social norms (Carroll, Jiang, and Zhang, 2011). According to Prohaska, Anderson, and Binstock (2012), critical elements of social engagement include activity (actually doing something), interaction (at least two people must be involved in this activity), social exchange (the activity involves giving or receiving something from others), and no compulsion (no outside force forcing an individual to engage in the activity). What is understood is that social engagement dismisses paid activities or any other obligations related to formal commitments. Social engagement is related to whether individuals are more or less engaged with various communities. In this regard, studies in social sciences have suggested that new information

258

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and communication technologies increase social engagement in distant or virtual communities and consequently decrease their involvement in local communities (Carroll et al., 2011). In summary, the aforementioned ideas suggest that, regarding societal development, social engagement could provide knowledge (transfer) to any community with HE as a vector in the promotion of initiatives geared to overcome social constraints in Colombia and the world.

CONCLUSIONS Efforts to overcome inequity in societies usually prioritize solutions from education policymakers, governments, and HEIs, primarily between advanced and lagging regions. Education is expected to provide students with the necessary skills to get ahead in life, irrespective of social background. Nowadays, the complete chain of education has a direct relationship with the workforce that is now needed, and demanded, to prosper in a constantly changing world. Current graduates must have strong critical thinking skills, be adaptable, and be capable of learning new skills (e.g., soft and hard skills and problem solving) to perform better in the labor market. As such, education is an engine of social mobility, and this should be the driver in the Colombian case. Moreover, the main questions to address are as follows: Is education providing an opportunity for students to succeed regardless of family origin? Alternatively, is inequity hindering the opportunities for students to acquire and attain the necessary skills for their future performance in HE and the labor market? As aforementioned, the leading causes of the perpetuation of social exclusion in education are from socio-economic premises and lack of educational opportunities, which demonstrates unfair elements of disparity and elitism from the early beginnings. Compared with high-performing and equitable education systems that promote a good initial beginning into education, with high-quality training in the early stages of education programs for children, the accessible systems oriented to cover disadvantaged individuals in society may make the difference in these students obtaining good results in the long run—for any nation. Relevant teaching is essential. Curriculum development must include various learning styles and align with students’ realities. Working closely with students’ family backgrounds (parents and community) may help each child achieve his or her fullest academic potential. Efficient, fair education systems tend to be flexible, propose educational paths, and do not label or track students into irrelevant vocational options of poor quality. Proper allocation of resources and the provision of high-quality human capital to schools that struggle most instead of advantaged schools could be the most pivotal element of success for a country. The previous statements are also part of the discussions to be considered by policymakers in Colombia. A lack of (financial) resources has hampered the achievement of the proposed objectives and reverted aspects such as the autonomy of universities. Subsequently, urbanization processes and demographic changes in Colombia have led to a growing demand for educational services, which has favored the opening of private institutions and the emergence of universities with evening programs. Upon the signing of the 1991 Charter, freedom of teaching was treasured and education was recognized as a right, which is reflected in an increase in national educational coverage. Conversely, in the twenty-eight years since the Constitution of the 91, Colombia

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

259

has accumulated a series of constraints that characterize its HE: (i) High dropout rates, mainly because of socio-political constraints and the current implications of a negotiated and concerted peace with outlaw groups, privileging a different agenda for reinserting guerrilla members into the society; (ii) low-income students have been faced with difficulties in access to HE, especially in regions far from main urban centers; (iv) low qualification of teachers at all the levels of the educational sector; (vi) alignment between the country’s economic and social development with an educational agenda; (vii) irrelevant research activities and society; (viii) weak links between HE and the productive sector, especially in agriculture; (ix) inadequate resource allocation for faculty qualification; (x) constraints between public and private HE; (xi) classroom saturation of students per faculty; (xii) lack of readiness of high school students to enter HE, especially in rural areas; (xiii) lack of infrastructure and equipment; and (xiv) slow development of public universities and increase of private institutions that cannot guarantee quality standards (the difference between the rural and urban). According to the distribution of institutions nationwide, the official sector has a greater presence in cities of slight prominence, whereas the private sector has typically been concentrated in big urban centers. Finally, if development is understood as the process of adding improvements to a particular aspect (e.g., place, person, and time), ergo, socially sustainable development may imply that all efforts could be based on long-term intentions rather than temporary intuitions. This implication suggests that development could be fostered from intentioned knowledge from Internationalizing HE for the benefit of society.

REFERENCES Anzola-Pardo, G. (2018). The intersection between social development and the internationalization of HE in Colombia. Retrieved from http://ow.ly/db3b30ppV2f (accessed July 29, 2019). Berry, C., and Taylor, J. (2014). Internationalization in HE in Latin America: Policies and Practice in Colombia and Mexico. Dordrecht: Springer Science plus Business Media. Bertucci, G., and Alberti, A. (2001). Globalization and the Role of the State: Challenges and Perspectives. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9edd/97224bb2978453e6ff5c08afc56dd9e606 4e.pdf (accessed June 21, 2016). Callan, H. (2000). The international vision in practice: A decade of evolution. Higher Education in Europe, 25. Carroll, J., Jiang, H., and Zhang, S. (2011). Integrating online and offline community through Facebook. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5928738/ (accessed January 12, 2016). CEPAL (2016). Estudio Económico de América Latina y el Caribe 2016: La Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible y los Desafíos del financiamiento para el Desarrollo. https://www. cepal.org/es/publicaciones/40326-estudio-economico-america-latina-caribe-2016-la-agenda2030-desarrollo (accessed December 3, 2017). CNA (2013a). Importancia y calidad de los procesos de internacionalización de las IES en el marco de la acreditación. www.cna.gov.co (accessed July 23, 2017). CNA (2013b). Lineamientos para la acreditación de programas de pregrado. Retrieved from www.cna.gov.co/1741/articles-186359_pregrado_2013.pdf (accessed April 1, 2016). Dahlman, C. (2007). Technology, globalization, and international competitiveness: Challenges for developing countries. https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/industrial_ development/1_2.pdf (accessed February 23, 2016).

260

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

DANE (2014). Cuentas Trimestrales—Colombia Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) Cuarto Trimestre de 2013 y Total Anual. www.dane.gov.co (accessed May 6, 2014). De Wit, H., Jaramillo, I., Gacel-Ávila, J., and Knight, J. (2005). Higher Education in Latin America: The International Dimension. Directions in Development. Washington, DC : World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7428 (accessed November 10, 2016). Dewhurst, M., Pettigrew, M., and Srinivasan, R. (2012). How multinationals can attract the talent they need. http://www.mckinsey.com (accessed October 22, 2013). DNP (2011). National Development Plan—“Prosperity for all” 2010–2014. https:// colabouracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/PND/Resumen_Ejecutivo_Definitivo_PND%20en%20 ingl%C3%A9s06-07-2011.pdf (accessed February 2, 2016). Egron-Polak, E., and Hudson, R. (2010). Internationalization of HE: Global trends, regional perspectives. IAU 3rd global survey report. Paris: International Association of Universities. Fernández, A. (2011). Urgen políticas de internacionalización para las universidades públicas. UN Periódico. Bogotá. 4. Gacel-Ávila, J. (2007). The process of internationalization of Latin American Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 400–409. https://doi. org/10.1177/1028315307303921 Gomez, C. (2015). Internationalizing solidarity: A concept for mobility beyond technical definitions. Internationalization of Higher Education: Beyond Mobility. Conference paper. https://www.eiseverywhere.com/ehome/iau2015siena/231811/ (accessed February 22, 2016). HAYS (2013). Una Mirada hacia el futuro de Colombia. https://www.hays.com.co/cs/groups/ hays_common/@co/@content/documents/digitalasset/hays_773788.pdf (accessed January 16, 2017). Hermanowicz, J. (2014). Dynamics of the contemporary university: Growth, accretion, and conflict. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 43(5): 739–741. http://journals. sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0094306114545742zz (accessed November 23, 2016). Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization from Concept to Action. http://www. nafsa.org/uploadedfiles/nafsa_home/resource_library_assets/publications_library/2011_ comprehen_internationalization.pdf (accessed April 19, 2015). ICFES (2002). Guía para la Internacionalización de las IES de Colombia. Bogotá. Jaramillo, I.C. (2003). La internacionalización de la educación superior y su dinámica en Colombia. LCSHD Paper Series. No. 82. Washington, DC : World Bank. Jaramillo, I.C. (2005). Internacionalización de la educación superior en Colombia. In Educación superior en América Latina. La dimensión internacional. Washington, DC : World Bank, pp. 179–215. Kahn, J., and Ghani, J. (2004). Clusters and entrepreneurship: Implications for innovation in a developing economy. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9(3): 221–238. Kehm, B., and Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4): 260–273. Kobayashi, T. (1986). The internationalization of Japanese education. Comparative Education, 22(1): 65. Ma, H. (1999). Creation and pre-emption for competitive advantage. Management Decision, 37, 259–267. doi: 10.1108/00251749910264497 Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1): 1–39. MEN-CCYK (2013). Estudio sobre la Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en Colombia y Modernización de Indicadores de Internacionalización del Sistema Nacional de

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

261

Información de la Educación Superior. http://www.colombiaaprende.edu.co/html/ directivos/1598/articles-347706_documento (accessed August 25, 2015). Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN) (2010). Política de Educativa 2011–2014: “Educación de Calidad, el Camino para la Prosperidad.” http://www.mineducacion.gov. co/1621/propertyvalue-41686.html (accessed June 21, 2015). Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN) (2014). Acuerdo por lo Superior 2034. http://www. mineducacion.gov.co/1621/articles-344500_Brochure_acuerdo_Superior.pdf (accessed May 21, 2015). Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN and OCyT) (2014). Reflexiones para la política de internacionalización de la educación superior en Colombia. https://www.cna.gov.co/1741/ articles-186502_Reflexiones2014.pdf (accessed July 15, 2019). OECD (2015). Education at a glance (OECD indicators). www.oecd-ilibrary.org (accessed September 20, 2017). OECD and World Bank (2012). Evaluaciones de políticas nacionales de Educación: La Educación superior en Colombia. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/evaluaciones-de-politicasnacionales-de-educacion-la-educacion-superior-en-colombia_9789264180710-es (accessed March 4, 2016). Otálora, J.A.R. (2009). Elementos para la discusión de la internacionalización de la educación superior colombiana. Revista Facultad de Ciencias Economicas, 17(1): 109–122. Prohaska, T., Anderson, L., and Binstock, R. (2012). A public health approach to the challenges of an aging society. https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article-pdf/. . ./gnu099.pdf (accessed January 12, 2016). Ramirez, J. (2011). Historia crítica de la planeación urbana en Colombia. Una aproximación interpretativa desde los estudios sociales de la ciencia. http://www.bdigital.unal.edu. co/5217/1/393266.2011.pdf (accessed May 10, 2016). Ray, R. (2012). The State Human Capital 2012. False Summit. Why the Human Capital Function Still Has Far to Go. A Report by McKinsey and Company and the Conference Board. Restrepo, J.C. (2004). El desarrollo en Colombia: historia de una hegemonía discursiva. Revista Lasallista de Investigación 2004. www.redalyc.org (accessed September 29, 2016). Searle, J. (2010). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press. https://books. google.com.co/books?isbn=1439108366 (accessed June 20, 2017). Semana Magazine (2012). Las 100 empresas más grandes en Colombia—2012. www.semana. com (accessed August 6, 2013). Shutina, R. (2008). An Investigation of the Role that the Nation’s Six Major Higher- Education Associations Have Played in the Internationalization of American Higher Education During the Last Decade (1996–2006). The University of Toledo. SNIES (2017). Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior. https://www. mineducacion.gov.co/sistemasdeinformacion/1735/w3-article-212400.html (accessed November 23, 2017). Swystun, J. (2014). Going Global. Risks and Rewards. http://www.brandchannel.com/papers_ review.asp?sp_id=876 (accessed January 16, 2017). Tilak, J. (2010). Policy crisis in higher education: Reform or deform? Social Scientist, 38(9/12), 61–90. UNESCO (2009). Interview with Boutros Boutros-Ghali: “Democracy is the sharing of power.” http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/interview_with_boutros_ boutros_ghali_democracy_is_the_sh/ (accessed November 22, 2018).

262

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Uribe, J. (2010). La internacionalización de la educación superior en Colombia, un desafío para asegurar la prosperidad democrática. Revista UNICIENCIA , 1: 1–13. Welch, A. (1988). For sale by degrees: Overseas students and the commodification of higher education in Australia and The United Kingdom. International Review of Education, 34(3): 387–395.

APPENDIX List of Abbreviations A SCUN

Asociación Colombiana de Universidades

CCYK

Colombia – Challenge Your Knowledge

CEPAL

Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe

CESU

Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior

can

Consejo Nacional de Acreditación

COLCIENCIAS

Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación

DANE

Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística

DNP

Departamento Nacional de Planeación

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

HE

Higher Education

HEI(s)

Higher Education Institution(s)

IAU

International Association of Universities

ICFES

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior

IHE

Internationalization of Higher Education

LATAM

Latin America

MOUs

Memoranda of Understanding

MEN

Ministerio de Educación Nacional

NDP

National Development Plan

NGO(s)

Nongovernmental Organization(s)

OCyT

Observatorio en Ciencia y Tecnología

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PISA

Programme for International Student Assessment

RCI

Red Colombiana para la Internacionalización

SNIES

Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior

The outlined terms or phrases and their explanations are brief and denote how each is used in the context of this study.

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

263

Working Definitions of Significant Terms Higher Education (HE)

The highest level of traditional education (with primary and secondary as its previous levels). In some countries, HE is referred to as tertiary education, post-secondary education, or third-level education. HE is delivered by a range of institutions such as universities, colleges, schools, seminaries, academies, and institutes of technology. HE includes undergraduate and postgraduate levels of education.

Internationalization of HE (IHE)

Process of a HE institution to holistically incorporate international features that add value to its substantive elements (i.e., teaching, research, and extension) employing its capacities, resources, and context adaptation to transform socially based realities.

Sustainable development

Interrelated considerations that should be considered when implementing development interventions. In principle, it fosters the organization and implementation of a set of resources needed to provide an equilibrium in the present while considering the future of societies.

Social development

Process of realization of goals and aims of a “society” in the attempt to establish social well-being according to its context.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

Internationalization of Higher Education in Mexico An Unfinished Agenda FRANCISCO MARMOLEJO 1

INTRODUCTION In recent years, the Mexican system of higher education has experienced a significant growth in enrollment, diversification, and complexity. In a way, the transformation of the Mexican higher education system is highly interrelated with the corresponding overall transition that the country has registered in economic and socio-demographic terms. As expected, the level of sophistication of universities in Mexico has increased, and labor market demands have transitioned as well, resulting in increased interest in internationalization from institutions of higher education. At the same time, governmentrelated entities have, in one way or another, also established—at least on paper—strategies and, in some cases, concrete initiatives aimed at supporting the internationalization of higher education. Nevertheless, despite government intentions, most efforts towards internationalization have been driven by higher education institutions (HEIs) and corresponding interinstitutional networks established with the very aim of internationalization in mind. Also, a significant role contributing to the internationalization of higher education in Mexico has been played by foreign government entities devoted to supporting international engagement of their respective colleges and universities. Ultimately, it is certain that, in some of those universities, the concept of internationalization has transitioned from a marginal concept to a mainstream strategic component, especially within the ranks of the most advanced higher education institutions in the country. However, in general, efforts on the field have focused mostly on traditional approaches towards internationalization such as student and faculty exchanges, signing of memoranda of understanding (MOUs), establishing of joint and dual degree programs, and, in very limited cases, offering of academic programs in a language different from Spanish. In reality, institutional efforts intending to implement a comprehensive internationalization strategy are very limited. Also, internationalization activities tend to concentrate on a South–North collaboration

The opinions expressed by the author do not reflect the opinions of the World Bank or the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development.

1

264

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

265

mostly with European countries, the United States, and Canada. In addition, some seasonal government efforts have attempted to support mobility of students but with limited impact due to their inconsistency and limited sustainability in the long run. Paradoxically, as the national economy has experienced an important transformation in the last three decades, employers increasingly demand higher education graduates with second language competencies and globally oriented skills and global awareness; however, with a few exceptions, the traditional academic settings prevalent in many higher education institutions still have limited capacity to promptly respond. This chapter provides a brief outlook of the Mexican higher education system. It reviews key trends in the national context, and also discusses significant challenges in connection with the internationalization of higher education, along with lessons learned, and pointers for action for governments and institutions.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO: A BRIEF OUTLOOK A Glimpse of History The origins of the higher education system in Mexico can be traced to colonial times, and in particular to 1553, when the Real Pontificia Universidad de Mexico was established. In subsequent years, some religiously oriented institutions were established in the most important cities. After gaining independence from Spain in the early nineteenth century, some of those institutions served as a basis for the foundation of local universities which eventually became public autonomous universities. In fact, in the early part of the twentieth century, in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution, the universities of Michoacan and San Luis Potosi were granted autonomy by local government decree and, in 1929, the University of Mexico also obtained such a status, becoming the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). Later, other institutions, usually one per state, obtained a similar status. Due to the importance of UNAM in the national context, state autonomous universities gradually adopted its academic, organizational, and governance model. At the same time, the government began to authorize private universities in the 1940s, beginning with the first private university in Guadalajara (UAG). This continued with the Technological Institute of Monterrey (ITESM) in 1943, and the first internationally oriented and bilingual university in the country, known as Mexico City College, which later became the University of the Americas (UDLA).

Some Basic Information about the National System of Higher Education Currently, at the national level, the system is composed of a complex array of public and private institutions. In 2016–17, the more than 3,700 higher education institutions in the country enrolled a total student population of 4.4 million, mostly in undergraduate programs (90 percent), representing 38 percent of the 18–22-year-old age segment of the entire population of the country. The national system of higher education institutions has evolved into a complex array of different institutions, which are clustered into thirteen different subsystems (See Table 17.1). Although most institutions are private (72 percent of the total number of HEIs), the largest share of student enrollment (67 percent) attends public institutions. Also, at the undergraduate level, only a marginal 4 percent of students are enrolled in short-term cycle academic programs (OECD, 2019; ANUIES, 2018).

266

TABLE 17.1 Main characteristics of the Mexican higher education system by subsystem Higher education subsystem

Type of institution

ISCED level

Field of study

Source of public funding

State public universities

Public

5 to 8

Comprehensive

Federal (SEP) and state (different proportions)

Federal public universities

Public

5 to 8

Comprehensive

Federal (SHCP)

Federal institutes of technology

Public (direct pr

5 to 8

Technological fields

Federal (SEP)

Decentralised institutes of technology

Public (direct pr

5 to 8

Technological fields

Federal and state (50% each)

Technological universities

Public (direct pr

5 to 7

Technical fields

Federal and state (50%)

Polytechnic universities

Public (direct pr

6 to 8

Technical fields

Federal and state (50% each)

Teacher education institutions (public) Public (direct pr

5 to 8

Education

Federal (SEP)

State public universities with solidarity Public (direct pr support

6 to 8

Fields relevant to region

Federal and state (different proportions)

Intercultural universities

5 to 8

Fields relevant to region

Federal and state (50% each)

Public (direct pr

Public research centres

Public (direct pr

6 to 8

One specific field of study

Federal (SEP and CONACyT)

Other public higher education institutions

Public and som

5 to 8

Varied

Federal and state

Private universities

Private

5 to 8

Varied

None

Teacher education institutions (private) Private

6 to 8

Education

None

TABLE 17.1 contd. Enrollment Higher education subsystem

Number of students

% total Undergraduate

State public universities

1 152 317

26.00%

Federal public universities

584 692

Federal institutes of technology

340 800

Decentralised institutes of technology

241 035

Technological universities

241 688

Polytechnic universities Teacher education institutions (public)

Institutions Postgraduate

Annual growth1

95.30%

4.70%

3.40%

13.20%

91.40%

8.60%

7.70%

98.80%

1.20%

5.40%

99.60%

5.50%

100.00%

92 785

2.10%

83 573

1.90%

State public universities with solidarity support

68 089

Intercultural universities Public research centres Other public higher education institutions Private universities Teacher education institutions (private)

Programs

% total

Total

% total

Total

% total

34

0.90%

929

15.20%

5 480

14.40%

3.90%

9

2.50%

229

3.70%

1 491

3.90%

3.10%

128

3.40%

135

2.20%

1 658

4.40%

0.40%

12.50%

134

3.60%

141

2.30%

1 263

3.30%

0.00%

12.60%

113

3.00%

131

2.10%

1 685

4.40%

98.80%

1.20%

42.50%

61

1.60%

61

1.00%

378

1.00%

96.30%

3.70%

–2.50%

276

7.30%

306

5.00%

864

2.30%

1.50%

98.20%

1.80%

8.30%

22

0.60%

100

1.60%

514

1.40%

14 784

0.30%

99.50%

0.50%

14%

11

0.30%

31

0.50%

129

0.30%

37

1.00%

65

1.10%

217

0.60%

160

4.30%

305

5.00%

1 325

3.50%

2,517 66.90%

3,496

57.00% 22 537

59.40%

6 996

0.20%

2.20%

97.80%

4%

116 813

2.60%

85.30%

14.70%

2.30%

1 472 197

33.20%

86.80%

13.20%

4.50%

14 479

0.30%

95.10%

4.90%

–

Total

Campuses

176

Note 1: Average annual growth since 2000 (2001 for intercultural universities and 2002 for polytechnic universities). Note on acronyms: “SEP” stands for Secretaria de Educación Pública, or Ministry of Public Education “SHCP” stands for Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, or Ministry of Finance “CONACyT” stands for Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Technology, or National Science and Technology Council 267

Source: OECD (2019). Higher Education in Mexico: Labour Market Relevance and Outcomes. Paris: OECD

4.70%

200

3.30%

412

1.10%

268

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In recent years the system has expanded significantly, especially when taking into consideration the fact that the national enrollment in higher education in 1970 was only equivalent to 5 percent of the current total enrollment. At the same time, a significant diversification of institutions has resulted in the establishing of a variety of non-traditional universities, including polytechnic universities (mostly dedicated to STEM fields), teacher training institutions known as Escuelas Normales, technological universities (which at least in principle were intended to provide two-year technical degrees similar to Associate Degrees offered in Community Colleges in the United States), indigenous universities (located in communities with larger number of indigenous students), online universities (most notably the Universidad Abierta y a Distancia), and, more recently, a new type of open-access small undergraduate universities being established in mid-size cities by the federal government as part of a strategy aimed at expanding access to higher education. Both the federal and state governments have the power to grant authorization for the establishment of a higher education institution. Academic programs being offered by an institution should also be previously approved by governments. Several institutions— mostly public—are a key exception to this regulation, as they have obtained the status of being autonomous, allowing them to establish, modify, or close academic programs based on their own internal processes and regulations without the need to seek further approval from government.

Quality Assurance: Work in Progress In recent years, government efforts aimed at increasing access to higher education by establishing new public institutions and supporting the expansion of existing ones have not been sufficient. This has led to a significant growth in the number of private institutions and their academic offerings, in many cases with limited basic infrastructure, teachers without adequate credentials, and, in general, of low or questionable quality. The problem has been exacerbated by relaxed enforcement of monitoring regulations and the absence of mandatory accreditation of academic programs. Nevertheless, a voluntary accreditation mechanism has been gradually consolidated in the country, as more advanced institutions intend to use it as a proxy of their quality and prestige. A first effort consisted of the establishment of the Inter-institutional Committees for the Evaluation of Higher Education (CIEES), which allow HEIs to request the visit of review teams composed of academic peers from other institutions who in turn prepare and deliver a report scoring the quality of a given academic program and suggest recommendations for its improvement. In addition, the Higher Education Accreditation Council (COPAES being its acronym in Spanish) establishes and monitors general operational standards of several discipline-specialized independent accreditation agencies ranging from Medicine to Philosophy, which review and grant accreditation of academic programs at the request of institutions, either public or private. In parallel, private universities have established a comprehensive institution-wide accreditation system, which is managed by the Mexican Federation of Private Institutions of Higher Education (FIMPES). Another proxy of quality widely accepted in the country, especially in scientific circles, is the awarding of a special status, known as Padrón de Posgrado de Excelencia that the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) provides to a select number of graduate programs once they fulfill strict eligibility criteria. An important incentive for HEIs submitting their master’s and doctoral degree programs to such an evaluation is

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

269

that once a program is included in the roster or Padrón, full-time enrolled students are fully funded by CONACYT. Last, but not least, another para-governmental organization, the National Higher Education Evaluation Centre (CENEVAL), has specialized in the development and administration of student assessment tests, which are being widely used by institutions in support of their admission and graduation processes. In addition to national accreditation, a small number of institutions have turned their attention to seeking accreditation—either at the overall institutional level or at the programmatic level—by related accrediting agencies from other countries. Most notably, a few private institutions are accredited in the United States by either the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) or the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). In addition, several institutions, both public and private, have academic programs accredited by specialized agencies such as AABSC (in the case of business and economics) and ABET (in the case of engineering programs). As expected, foreign accreditation is commonly used by those institutions as a way to indicate that their quality is up to international standards. It is also used in support of outreach to partner institutions from other countries.

Governance Regarding governance, well-established private institutions are governed by boards of trustees mostly composed by external members whose attribution is to authorize academic programs and budgets, and also to appoint heads of institutions. In the case of centrally controlled public institutions, the head of the institution is usually designated by the corresponding government authority, while in the case of autonomous universities, in general, an internal university council composed by elected faculty and students, and also by the Deans of schools, elects the Rector, authorizes budgets, and approves the opening and closure of academic offerings among other tasks. An important feature, relevant in the case of internationalization efforts, is that, at least in the case of autonomous universities, since the election of authorities can be highly politicized, internal organizational structures and teams are relatively vulnerable—especially during leadership transition processes. It has been seen regularly that as a new management team comes on board, an office devoted to internationalization may be affected by also having its leadership and staff subjected to changes. This causes a loss in institutional memory about internationalization and, in many cases, results in the arrival of a new team that may try to “reinvent the wheel” or to shut down initiatives and partnerships based on a political criteria all while remaining unaware of their importance. At the system level, the main entity overseeing the higher education sector at the ministerial level is the Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP), with the authority to define national education policy and dictate general directives applicable to the entire higher education sector. At the same time, SEP has the responsibility to collect and disseminate relevant sector data, administer the federal budget dedicated to support public HEIs, and maintain the registry of individuals holding a degree, among other tasks. In addition to SEP, other government entities relevant to higher education and its internationalization are: the Foreign Affairs Ministry (SRE) and its Mexican Agency for Cooperation and International Development (AMEXCID); the Institute for Mexicans Abroad (IME), which connects Mexican diaspora; and the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) due to its work in both supporting Mexicans to conduct graduate studies abroad, and also financing universities’ outreach to international peers for research collaboration. At the

270

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

state level, most governments have a State Secretary for Education and, in some cases, a State Secretary for Innovation, although their role in connection with the higher education sector mostly complements directives defined by SEP at the national level. Another important player in the sector is the National Association of Universities (ANUIES) due to its representational role on behalf of both public and private HEIs. In addition to its role lobbying governments on behalf of member institutions, ANUIES conducts studies aimed at understanding key issues faced by higher education in the country, and offers professional development training. A similar role is also played among private higher education institutions by FIMPES, the Mexican Federation of Private Institutions of Higher Education.

Funding Regarding funding, it is important to be aware that, in general, all institutions—whether public or private—charge tuition and/or fees to students, although in the case of many public institutions, fees are mostly symbolic. In contrast, private institutions mostly rely on revenues resulting from student tuition and fees to cover their operations, since they are not eligible to receive direct public funds. Public autonomous universities receive budget allocations from federal and state governments in the form of subsidies mostly based on historic trends. In the case of centrally controlled institutions, faculty and administrative staff are government employees. Most of the public funding received by autonomous institutions is used to pay salaries and benefits, although in recent years the government has established a variety of performancebased competitive funding mechanisms. On several occasions, such additional financing has allowed institutions to support their international outreach.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Internationalization of higher education in Mexico is a relatively new concept. It was not until the establishment of the Mexican Association for International Education (AMPEI) in 1992 that universities in the country started to pay attention to their internationalization. AMPEI was founded as a professional development organization of individuals working in international efforts at both public and private universities in the country. The idea of connecting individuals rather than institutions, regardless of their institutional affiliation, was an uncommon concept in the higher education sector at the time that AMPEI was founded. More than a quarter of a century after AMPEI was established, its key role in developing institutional capacity and creating awareness of the importance of internationalization of higher education in Mexico is widely accepted (Bustos-Aguirre, Lizarraga-Gonzalez, and Cröte-Ávila, 2018). Nevertheless, in spite of internationalization being adopted as a priority in a larger number of HEIs with corresponding institutional support, the country is still lacking an explicit public policy focusing on providing a framework to enable and foster the internationalization of higher education (Gacel-Ávila and Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 2018). Also, at the institutional level, the importance of internationalization, as expressed in terms of its inclusion on strategic plans, is not always paired with an adequate level of financial and organizational support. A good way to illustrate this point is to note that for only 23 percent of institutions surveyed by Gacel-Ávila and Bustos-Aguirre (2017), their

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

271

office of international affairs was positioned at the first hierarchical level, while in 71 percent of institutions it was at a second hierarchical level, and, finally, in 6 percent at a third level of the organizational chart. Similarly, at the system level, in recent years the federal government has been eager to demonstrate the favoring of the internationalization of higher education. However, for practical matters, such a willingness tends to be translated into either rhetorical actions, or into isolated activities with limited impact, all in the absence of any explicit national policy supporting internationalization (Gacel-Ávila, 2018). In fact, in a comparative study commissioned by the British Council using an index-based methodology on 37 qualitative indicators, the national policy framework for internationalization of higher education in Mexico was the only one among the twenty countries analyzed that was rated with an overall score of “low” (Usher, Ilieva, Killingley, and Tsiligiris, 2019). Such mixed reviews of both advances and limitations in the process of making internationalization in higher education in Mexico mainstream, can be analyzed in a time continuum in order to envision potential next stages. In the case of Mexico, three main stages of evolution of internationalization are present (See Figure 17.1).

1990–2000. Internationalization of Higher Education 1.0: Inception In the 1980s, internationalization initiatives in Mexican higher education were rather negligible. The international outreach of universities was mostly confined to UNAM and Universidad de Guadalajara, in the case of public universities, and to some private institutions (namely the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, ITESM, and the University of the Americas) as well. Back in those years, the Mexican economy and society as a whole still had limited interactions abroad after decades of inward-oriented economic development policies. Universities were experiencing their own processes of expansion in which international engagement was not really on the horizon. A few institutions had in place an administrative unit known as Oficina de Intercambio Académico (Academic

FIGURE 17.1: Internationalization of higher education in Mexico. Stages of development. Source: Author’s elaboration.

272

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Exchange Office), mostly focusing on engagement with other universities in the country and, occasionally, with international partners. However, as the Mexican government began negotiations towards the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), universities gradually started to become interested in internationalization. The founding of AMPEI in 1992 became a detonator of internationalization of higher education in Mexico which, in a way, arose from the interest from a group of pioneer institutional leaders and heads of international offices to create a space for the exchange of ideas and capacity building, as well as the support of the office of academic and cultural affairs of the US Embassy in Mexico. In parallel, the momentum created by NAFTA negotiations triggered a variety of interinstitutional higher education collaborative alliances such as: the alliance established in 1994 between the American Council of Education (ACE) and ANUIES, as well as the US–Mexico Educational Interchange Project co-convened by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) from the United States and AMPEI. In fact, this latter collaboration ultimately led to the creation of the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC) as well. At the same time, the governments of Mexico, the United States, and Canada organized a series of trilateral meetings allowing a first generation of university leaders from the three countries to meet. Those meetings resulted in the establishment of several trilateral programs, of which the most notable was the North American Student Mobility Program (PROMESAN), which provided financial resources for the creation of trilateral consortia of at least six universities. Support by governments in the NAFTA region was highly instrumental, especially in the case of Mexican universities, considering the significant influence of SEP in establishing directives, and keeping in mind that, for those institutions, international engagement was something relatively new. All aforementioned support provided a significant incentive to Mexican universities towards their internationalization. The synergies established between universities participating in the PROMESAN initiative served as a basis for the further expansion of an international outlook of many Mexican universities. A related role was played by similar initiatives sponsored by the European Commission, although the most visible one, in terms of the multiplier effect inside Mexican higher education institutions, was the North American one.

2000–2010. Internationalization of Higher Education 2.0: Expansion and Diversification As expected, the visible efforts towards economic integration in the North American region, in the aftermath of the signing of NAFTA, resulted in a significant growth in the number and significance of international collaborative initiatives of Mexican universities, mostly with counterparts in the United States and Canada. However, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, as new governments came to power, interest shifted towards other priorities, and several higher education institutions started to widen their outreach beyond the North American region, many times in connection with programs sponsored by governments from other countries, as is the case of collaboration with institutions in France, Germany, and Spain. Also, organizations such as AMPEI expanded their scope of work beyond the initial focus in collaboration mainly with NAFSA and CBIE, in the United States and Canada respectively, towards related organizations in other regions of the world. The creation of

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

273

the Network of International Education Associations (NIEAA), in which AMPEI took an active role, helped AMPEI strengthen connections with institutions in Europe, AsiaPacific, and even Latin America. International education professionals from Mexican higher education institutions, now more well versed in the peculiarities of the field, started to reach out to peers from other countries. Even organizations such as CONAHEC, whose official charter was intended to connect universities from the North American region, also expanded their membership criteria in order to include universities from any other region of the world. During this decade, international engagement of Mexican universities resulted in a significant proliferation of the offering of joint and dual degrees in partnership with peer institutions from abroad. Also, some of the more resourceful institutions established “offices of representation” in several countries with which they had more significant collaboration, at times in countries as distant as China.

2010–2020. Internationalization of Higher Education 3.0: Consolidation and Normalization Today’s setting of higher education internationalization in Mexico is, in a way, quite different from the one existing three decades ago. Internationalization is no longer a foreign concept to higher education institutions in Mexico. In fact, it has been embraced— at least symbolically—as a core component in the institutional strategy of many universities in the country. Most of those institutions have entire organizational units fully dedicated to work on internationalization. Also, even though collaboration with peer institutions in the United States continues to be important, Mexican institutions have widely expanded their outreach, especially in Europe, the rest of Latin America, East Asia, and Oceania. On the other hand, collaboration with countries in the MENA region, Africa, and South Asia remains negligible. At the government level, in recent years, greater attention has been placed on an international agenda. Nevertheless, results are mixed due to an absence of a long-term perspective, as well as limited sustainability and high volatility due to shifts in government priorities. Most notably, the past federal administration established the Mexican Agency for International Collaboration (AMEXCID) in 2013 with the goal to use “soft diplomacy” more visibly in support of the international agenda of the government. Also, until recently, a now extinct government entity known as PROMEXICO provided partial support for the participation of missions of Mexican universities in international education fairs held in conjunction with meetings of NAFSA and the European Association for International Education (EAIE), among others. Once PROMEXICO was shut down, no other government entity has come on board with the specific goal to support the presence of Mexican universities in relevant events in the field of international education. Also, a significant development in recent years, with similar mixed results, has been the launching of a short-lived initiative sponsored by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, aimed at massively supporting international experiences in the United States for Mexican students. The Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation and Research (FOBESII) was established in 2013, with the goal of supporting the mutual understanding and bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States by means of supporting student mobility, academic exchanges, research in areas of common interest, and innovation. The rationale of FOBESII was based on the fact that at the time of its inception there were fewer than 14,000 Mexican students in US colleges and universities

274

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

while only slightly more than 4,000 US students were enrolled in Mexican universities. FOBESII established the ambitious goal of reaching a threshold of 100,000 Mexican students in the United States and 50,000 US students in Mexico by 2018. FOBESII was intended to serve as a Mexican counterpart to the “100,000 Strong in the Americas” program sponsored by the US government with the goal of achieving a target of 100,000 students from the Latin American region enrolled in US higher education institutions and a similar number of US students enrolled in Latin American higher education institutions. FOBESII received significant political support from the Mexican government and was able to attract the interest of Mexican universities and also that of colleges and universities in the United States. This was in strong part due to the fact that Mexican students received financial support in the form of scholarships to cover travel expenses, as well as tuition and fees. However, as government transitions occurred in Mexico, and originally committed financial support was reduced, the ambitious strategy has been severely downsized. In contrast with the limited engagement from the federal government, some state governments have identified international education as an important area. This is the case in the state of Jalisco where both government and the most important public and private institutions have established and supported a consortium of universities committed to internationalization. Also, some foreign universities have established offices in Mexico and have even, in some cases, launched impactful collaborative initiatives. This is the case in the SUNYCOIL Centre, which is sponsored by the State University of New York. Since 2014 it has helped to develop partnerships between eighteen Mexican institutions, thirteen SUNY universities and colleges, and four universities outside of New York State. These institutional partnerships resulted in thirty-nine online courses taught between fall 2016 and spring 20172 (SUNY, 2017). For its part, ANUIES, the National Association of Universities, has focused its recent work on three main areas: hosting an annual international conference, nurturing its relationship with sister organizations in other countries, and organizing delegations of Mexican Rectors with the idea of meeting counterparts in other countries. Another interesting development in the internationalization realm has been the increased interest of foreign providers of education to enter into the Mexican higher education scene. The transnationalization of Mexican higher education has been mostly expressed in terms of foreign providers operating in Mexico. Even though, officially speaking, “for-profit” higher education is not permitted under Mexican regulations, foreign for-profit companies such as Laureate International Universities have managed to acquire existing universities such as Universidad del Valle de Mexico and UNITEC. Despite the fact that the academic approach of those institutions is similar to any other regular private university in Mexico, one of the ways they attract students employed by those institutions is to make the point that they are part of “the largest international network of degree-granting higher education institutions with more than 875,000 students enrolled at over 25 institutions with more than 160 campuses and online programs,”3 and that students can participate in exchange programs with institutions within the network.

http://coil.suny.edu/sites/default/files/2018-03/mcp_final_project_report_submitted.pdf http://www.laureate.net

2 3

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

275

A similar development has been the case of Arkansas State University (ASU), a public university in the United States which, in conjunction with Mexican investors, built a campus in the city of Queretaro as a private business foundation, offering since 2017 bilingual degrees valid in Mexico and the United States. Similar negotiations are happening towards the establishment of a campus of New Mexico State University in the city of San Luis Potosi in the future. At the institutional level, a relevant development is that a few universities have started to further advance their internationalization strategy by departing from the traditional emphasis on student exchanges, and embracing a more comprehensive approach aimed at providing an international perspective to larger number of students. In some cases, such as with Universidad de Monterrey and Universidad de Colima, a formal institutional strategy on internationalization “at home” and internationalization of the curriculum, respectively, is in place with promising results. In summary, the 2010–2020 decade has been characterized by a process of “normalization” of internationalization in higher education institutions. Internationalization is no longer a novel concept in many universities in Mexico, since it has become “business as usual.”

2020–2030. Internationalization of Higher Education 4.0: Exhaustion of Re-engagement? Since internationalization has lost some of its initial glamor as something new and exciting in higher education in Mexico, and no specific financial incentives in support of internationalization seem to be visible on the horizon, several scenarios may be possible for the upcoming decade. A potential scenario is that the field may experience some sense of exhaustion due to the fact that universities are facing significant budget cuts, and this may significantly affect the scope of work and capacity of international affairs of offices of higher education institutions. Under this scenario, internationalization efforts could be severely limited. This potential scenario is not far away from related concerns expressed at the global level (Knight and De Wit, 2018; Marmolejo, 2019; Brandenburg, de Wit, Jones, and Leask, 2019). Another scenario is that higher education institutions could take the current context as a basis for a future re-engagement of its internationalization agenda. Such a renewed role of internationalization could be achieved if universities in Mexico envision that, in the current and upcoming global context, preparing students with a global awareness and capacity is no longer simply a good idea but something necessary for future graduates. This scenario, although it can be seen as optimistic or even naive, requires higher education to design and implement bold curricular and regulatory transformations aimed at adapting academic programs accordingly.

276

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

LESSONS LEARNED, PENDING ITEMS, AND POINTERS FOR ACTION Internationalization Due, Despite, or Independently of Government Support? The process of internationalization of higher education in Mexico is a relatively new development. Nevertheless, there are important lessons learned. Probably the most visible one is that in the absence of a clear policy and political government endorsement or explicit support, higher education institutions have taken the process by themselves. It can be said that progress into the adoption of an international dimension in higher education in a way has happened not due to, but despite, the involvement of the government. Undoubtedly, a more internationalized higher education system would be in place in Mexico if government had been more supportive.

Increased Awareness of the Importance of Internationalization among Students: The Case of Study Abroad Interestingly, the idea of having internationally relevant competencies is increasingly been seen by higher education students not only as something important, but also as feasible. This was not the case until relatively recently. A survey conducted with students from public and private institutions in Mexico (Camacho, 2017) showed general awareness of opportunities made available at the institutional level including opportunities to study a semester abroad (26.5 percent), research conducted abroad (14.1 percent), learning of foreign languages (11.7 percent), etc. Only 31.2 percent of respondents indicated not having plans to participate on abroad opportunities offered by the institution. Reasons for not participating included financial limitations (33.1 percent), limited command of a foreign language (18.8 percent), plans to finish the academic workload as soon as possible (16.6 percent), unavailability of scholarships (8.2 percent), limited family support (5.4 percent), etc. Regarding preferred destinations, undergraduate students planning to study abroad mentioned in order of importance Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, and France; while graduate students mentioned Spain, Germany, Canada, and United Kingdom. In both cases, the number of responses for the United States was not significantly mentioned (Camacho, 2017). Last, but not least, student respondents who already participated in a program abroad indicated that their rationale for their decision was improving their CV (21.5 percent), learning about the culture of another country (20.4 percent), learning or improving command on a foreign language (14.3 percent), being the recipient of a scholarship (14.1 percent), the existence of an agreement between the home and host institutions (8.7 percent), etc. (Camacho, 2017). Persistent Absence of Consistent Data and Evidence-Based Information An important persistent challenge is that efforts towards gathering consistent and relevant data on internationalization of higher education in Mexico are rather limited. A pioneer effort towards disseminating related research is the Educacion Global journal published periodically by AMPEI since 2000, although its impact is limited due to the fact that it is not available online. In addition, in recent years, the research work done by the Latin American Network of Internationalization of Higher Education (RIESAL) and the

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

277

Internationalization of Higher Education Observatory in Latin America (OBIRET) has provided useful knowledge. Last, but not least, a notable experience has been the case of Patlani, the national student mobility survey that has been conducted annually from 2010 to 2016 (MaldonadoMaldonado, Cortés, and Ibarra, 2016). It was established as an independent effort of a group of scholars and practitioners and the voluntary participation of higher education institutions. Most recently housed at ANUIES, Patlani has provided useful information about patterns of international student mobility to and from Mexico. However, such effort has not been exempted from significant logistical limitations. From Traditional to Innovative Internationalization Efforts Most higher education institutions embraced in internationalization still focus their action mostly on student mobility even though such work only supports the equivalent of 1 percent of the total enrollment of students. At the same time, metrics of internationalization performance of institutions usually refer to number of students going abroad, number of foreign students on campus, and signing of MOUs with foreign institutions. Even on efforts towards improved bilingualism, in most cases emphasis is placed on offering basic or optional second language courses, or marginally on using English as the language of instruction in a very limited number of regular subject courses. Nevertheless, there are promising cases in which some universities have embarked on designing and implementing institutional comprehensive internationalization strategies with concrete short- and longterm goals.

A FINAL NOTE After three decades of internationalization of higher education in Mexico, its importance is widely accepted, but its real impact is still marginal. The absence of reliable and consistent evidence of its role in preparing a larger number of students with a global mindset and related competencies, makes vulnerable the internationalization efforts at institutional level, especially in times of financial constraints. Efforts towards increasing the number of students and faculty members abroad are needed but insufficient. Consequently, a renewed agenda towards a more comprehensive internationalization of higher education in the country will make it necessary to mainstream its scope into the regular teaching, research, and public service functions of universities in the country.

REFERENCES ANUIES (2018). Anuarios Estadísticos de Educacion Superior. http://www.anuies.mx/ informacion-y-servicios/informacion-estadistica-de-educacion-superior/anuario-estadisticode-educacion-superior (retrieved October 15, 2019). Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E., and Leask, B. (2019). Defining internationalization in higher education for society. University World News. June 29, 2019. https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190626135618704 Bustos-Aguirre, M.L., Lizarraga-Gonzalez, A.M., and Cröte-Ávila, I.A. (2018). Asociación Mexicana para la Educación International. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (ed.), La dimensión International de la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Guadalajara: RIESALUniversidad de Guadalajara.

278

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Camacho, M. (2017). La movilidad estudiantil como principal forma de internacionalización en las IES mexicanas. Proceedings. XIV Congreso Nacional de Investigación Educativa. San Luis Potosí: COMIE . Gacel-Ávila, J. (2018). Internationalization of higher education in Mexico: Progress and challenges. In ACE-CIGE , International Brief for Higher Education Leaders (7), Washington: American Council on Education, pp. 24–27. Gacel-Ávila, J., and Bustos-Aguirre, M. (2017). La internacionalización de la educación superior en México. Educación Global, 21. Guadalajara: AMPEI . Gacel-Ávila, J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2018). Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Un Balance. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara, UNESCO-IESALC, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. Knight, J., and de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future. International Higher Education, 95, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.6017/IHE.2018.95.10715 Maldonado-Maldonado, A., Cortés, C., and Ibarra, B. (2016). Patlani. Encuesta mexicana de movilidad internacional estudiantil, 2012/13 y 2013/14. México: ANUIES . Marmolejo, F. (2019). Introduction. In NAFSA, International Education in a Time of Global Disruption Extended Reflections and Commentary by the 2018–19 NAFSA Senior Fellows. Washington: NAFSA . OECD (2019). Higher Education in Mexico: Labour Market Relevance and Outcomes, Higher Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Par https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309432-en SUNY (2017). U.S. Mexico Multistate COIL Program: Final Project Report. Collaborative Online International Learning. New York: SUNY. Usher, A., Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., and Tsiligiris, V. (2019). The Shape of Global Higher Education: The Americas. London: British Council.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

Conclusion: Latin America and the Caribbean Internationalization Process Main Achievements and Shortcomings JOCELYNE GACEL- Á VILA

Internationalization is driven by a dynamic and constantly evolving combination of political, economic, socio-cultural and academic rationales. These motives take diverse forms and dimensions in the different regions and countries of world, as well as in institutions and their programmes. Regional and national differences are varied and constantly evolving. — de Wit, Hunter, Howard, and Egron-Polack, 2015

INTRODUCTION This is precisely the main focus of the present chapter, which is to depict the key findings and characteristics of the internationalization process of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region, highlighted through the different chapters written on Brazil, the Caribbean, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. The main conclusion is that progress, mostly due to institutional involvement, has definitely been made in some countries, and in others, hardly, if not at all. Notwithstanding this positive evolvement, the question remains: will this progress be enough to train graduates with the relevant skills, as well as to produce the knowledge that LAC societies need in order to provide their populations with more opportunities for social expansion?

LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT All higher education (HE) systems of the countries being studied: Brazil, the Caribbean, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, have common characteristics in institutions, access, and funding, as well as in achievements and challenges. As any internationalization process is 279

280

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

determined by its HE context, it is important to first highlight the main characteristics of these HE national systems. The dominant trend in HE in Latin America and the Caribbean in the last two decades has been the growth of student enrollment, achieving a regional average in Gross Tertiary Enrolment Ratio (GTER) of 51.76 percent, which is above the world average (38 percent) (UNESCO, 2019), but still below other regions like North America and Western Europe (78.66 percent; Table 18.1). Private HE institutions account for most of this growth, in countries like Brazil (73.33 percent), Chile (84.36 percent), and Colombia (49.75 percent), (Table 18.1).1 As a result, LAC has reached the highest average of the world in terms of enrollment in the private sector, which is above 53 percent (Brunner and Miranda, 2016). Brazil has one of the largest HE systems in the world with 8.6 million students (Table 18.1), attaining a GTER of 51.34 percent, with higher enrollment than average in the private sector at undergraduate level, granting public loans support for low-income students (Zicman, Chapter 13 of this volume), a modern and diversified HE system with research universities, comprehensive university centers, colleges, and federal institutes on vocational training. Worth mentioning is the sharp increase in postgraduate programs achieved in the last few decades, especially in the public sector, whose eighteen universities are accountable for the 91.54 percent of the articles indexed in the Web of Science in the period 2007–2019. The Chile HE access rate of 88.46 percent is comparable to the ones of developed societies and is second in the region,3 with also a high enrollment in private institutions (84.5 percent). Chile has 61 universities, among which 70 percent are private and 30 percent public. Private enrollment accounts for 43 percent of private universities and 41 percent of vocational and technological institutions. Only 16 percent of the students attend public universities. Part of the HE funding is provided by the government (40 percent), mostly spent in financial aid for students (70 percent); and the rest (60 percent) stems from tuition fees paid by the students’ families. It is worth mentioning that public universities also charge tuition fees in Chile. According to González, Bernasconi, and

TABLE 18.1 LAC higher education access, 2018 HE size HE access % (million students) (GTER) World North America and Western Europe LAC Brazil Chile Mexico Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic

223.6 37.7 28.0 8.62 1.3 4.5 2.4 286,542 556,523

38.04 78.66 51.76 51.34 88.46 40.23 55.30 39.91 59.92

Enrollment in private sector %

53.00 73.33 84.46 33.56 49.75 No private enrollment 56.96

Source: UNESCO, 2019; Brunner & Miranda, 2016. The exception in this respect is Argentina. China (45 million students), India (34.4 million students). 3 The highest GTER in the region is Argentina (89.96 percent) with a private sector participation of 24.25 percent of the HE enrollment. 1 2

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

281

Puyol (Chapter 15, this volume), Chilean strategy to expand HE access, although successful, has had several costs. Initially, students from low-income families were targeted by low-quality institutions under a loosely regulated private HE sub-system. Nowadays, accreditation is regulated by a stronger quality assurance system. Nevertheless, high tuition fees to attend public and private institutions had to be paid by students’ families, a situation that has provoked important popular demonstrations of discontent. Mexico is the second largest HE system in the region, with a large amount of participation of the public sector, but it has one of the lowest access rates of the region (40.23 percent), with only a third of the enrolled students attending private institutions. Mexico has a diversified HE system (Marmolejo, Chapter 17, this volume), made of thirteen subsystems. Enrollment in the public sector accounts for 67 percent of the HE enrollment, with 33.56 percent in the private sector. Of the total enrollment, 90 percent is concentrated at undergraduate level, in contrast with the OECD countries average of 76 percent in bachelor’s programs. Colombia HE enrollment by level is distributed as follows: BA degree (61.4 percent), master’s degree (1.9 percent), PhD (0.2 percent), technological (28.7 percent), professional technical (4.9 percent), and specialization (3.9 percent). According to the OECD and the World Bank, several recent achievements are a significant increase in enrollment, coherent national planning and policy plans, robust support for equity through a student loan agency, and wide-ranging and cutting-edge assessment systems to guarantee data-based decision making. Nevertheless, there is still an extensive heterogeneity in the quality of the programs offered by universities and institutions, as well as disparities in access to HE (Anzola-Pardo, Chapter 16, this volume). The Caribbean region is very heterogeneous in terms of political organization, including thirteen states and nineteen overseas departments and dependencies. Most of the Caribbean region gross domestic product (GDP) (76 percent) is concentrated in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, 21 percent in Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Bahamas, Suriname, Barbados, and Guyana, and 3 percent in the remaining territories. Given the small scale of Caribbean societies and economies, integration of the parts would be an asset, but despite multiple initiatives, regional integration has been elusive (Insanally and Madera, Chapter 14, this volume). Access to HE remains low, with a limited education offer and few formal accreditation systems. These deficiencies are mainly to be attributed to the inconsistency of action as a regional community (Insanally and Madera). There is consensus that the Caribbean region requires the development of strategic initiatives in order to increase the attractiveness of HE offer for local and international students. However, this is a significant challenge in the face of diminishing public funding (Insanally and Madera). LAC government expenditure on HE as a percentage of its GDP is 1.42 percent (Red Indices, 2019), which is below the OECD average of 1.60 percent. In particular, Chile (1.36 percent), Brazil (1.34 percent), Mexico (1.04 percent), and Colombia (1.01 percent) expenditure on HE is below the LAC average. These restrictions in HE expenditure are among the main factors limiting the quality of the sector, which is ultimately a problem for the internationalization process, as has been consistently pointed out in all the country chapters. A concern for the region is the high dropout rate (22 percent in average), with a higher percentage in some countries like Colombia (45 percent) and Mexico (30 percent) (Ferreira, Ciro, Botero, Haimovich and Urzúa, 2017). Additionally, students take more time to graduate than in other regions; 72 percent of UK students achieve their studies in

282

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

due time, in contrast with 33 percent of Brazilian students and 16 percent of Chilean students (OECD, 2019a). Among the reasons explaining this situation, which is common in all LAC countries, is a majority of part-time students, and lengthy BA programs with traditional curricula of four or five years of duration. Programs are also consistently rigid, offer few general studies courses, and tend to be overspecialized (OECD, 2017). Another challenge of the HE sector in LAC is the low proportion of faculty with a doctoral degree. In Chile, they represent 11.78 percent, Colombia (9.22 percent), Cuba (7.44 percent), Dominican Republic (3.94 percent), and Mexico (7 percent), with the exception of Brazil (44.19 percent), (Table 18.2). Additionally, the proportion of faculty hired on an hourly basis represents the large majority of faculty in most of the countries of the region. The shortage of full-time faculty with PhDs is an important limitation for the establishment of postgraduate programs and research projects. At the same time, enrollment in doctoral programs is low, representing only 0.79 percent of the total enrollment, in contrast to the OECD average rate of 4 percent (OECD, 2019a). LAC also has important challenges in research, with a Gross Domestic Expenditure in R & D (GERD) of 0.64 percent of its GDP, well behind that of OECD countries (2.37 percent), and even China (2.15 percent), (UNESCO, 2019; OECD, 2019b). This low investment in R & D directly affects knowledge production, the development of postgraduate programs and international research engagement, and ultimately the region’s competitiveness. Brazil is the country with the highest percentage in GERD (1.27 percent) followed at a distance by Mexico (0.49 percent), Chile (0.36 percent), and Colombia (0.24 percent). In the Caribbean, Cuba (0.35 percent) and the Dominican Republic (0.35 percent) have a similar investment in R & D. In addition, LAC has fewer researchers per thousand total employment (1.73), which contrasts sharply with the OECD average of 8.3. Brazil leads the region with 2.97, followed by Chile (1.62), Mexico (1.01), and Colombia (0.52), (Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Interamericana, 2019; Red Indices, 2019). Brazil also leads the region in knowledge production, holding the 14th position for its volume of publications in scientific journals (Zicman, Chapter 13, this volume; SCImago, 2019). Worthy of mention is the case of Chile that, despite its relatively low investment in R & D, has the highest rate of citation per document (0.80), above Brazil (0.50), Mexico (0.51) and Colombia (0.53), (González, Bernasconi, & Puyol, Chapter 15, this volume). In summary, it can be said that LAC’s level of development in HE, as well as in research and knowledge production, in terms of quality, relevance, funding, and innovation sets clear limits to internationalization. Nevertheless, internationalization activities and international cooperation could well be the opportunity to overcome these shortcomings more rapidly, if the countries of the region have the expertise and set the right strategies to do so.

TABLE 18.2 LAC percentage of faculty with a doctoral degree, 2017 Brazil Faculty with doctoral degree

Chile

Mexico Colombia

44.19 % 11.78 % 7.00 %

9.22 %

Cuba

Dominican Republic

7.44 %

3.94 %

Source: Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Interamericana, 2019; Brunner and Miranda, 2016.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

283

NATIONAL PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC POLICIES TO FOSTER INTERNATIONALIZATION In all the above-mentioned countries, the main finding is that none of them has a welldefined and long-term internationalization strategy for HE, as such. Although it is true that some countries have succeeded in launching important national initiatives and programs, these are, nevertheless, mostly short-term, lack continuity and funding, and generally speaking do not achieve a major impact on the sector. When compared with those of other regions, LAC governments are definitely among the least supportive in the world. This situation of absence, weakness, or short-term internationalization public policies and national programs in LAC has also been pointed out in a series of studies realized by the British Council (BC) (Ilieva and Peak, 2016; Ilieva, Killingley, Tsiligiris, and Peak, 2017; Usher, Ilieva, Killingley, & Tsiligris, 2019). As described in more detail in Chapter 12, “Higher Education, Internationalization and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean” (Gacel-Ávila), the 2016 British Council (BC) study, carried out in twenty-six countries in different regions of the world, included the following Latin American countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. The methodology of the study set up a complete framework of categories and indicators to assess qualitatively and quantitatively the level of governmental support for internationalization through public policies on student and academic mobility, quality assurance of academic programs and recognition of overseas qualifications, funding of mobility and research collaboration, as well as access and sustainability. In terms of governmental support to HE internationalization, in the 2016 BC study, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico obtained an overall score of “low,” like Botswana, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, while other developing countries such as China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, and Thailand obtained scores of “high” or “very high.” For these latter countries, government support for internationalization is part of a general public policy oriented to economic and social development (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). More recently, the BC updated the aforementioned 2016 report under the following categories: International Strategy; International Student Mobility; International Research Engagement; and Transnational Education (Ilieva et al., 2017; Usher et al., 2019). As a result, the position of some LAC countries has improved and others have not. Brazil is the best example in the region, obtaining the score of “high” in International Strategy, and “strong” both in International Student Mobility and International Research Engagement but “weak” in Transnational Education (TNE), Quality Assurance, and Inbound Mobility. Brazil’s global position is behind Bulgaria, Greece, and India. Therefore, the fragile parts of the Brazilian international strategy are a weak policy support for transnational education, quality assurance, and international inbound mobility. This situation is confirmed by Zicman (Chapter 13, this volume), who points out that the National Education Plan (2014) does not contain a thorough public policy to support internationalization in every heading, but only vague statements such as, “to consolidate and expand programs and initiatives to encourage student and faculty mobility in undergraduate and postgraduate courses at domestic and international level with the aim of enriching the Brazilian higher education.” Nevertheless, the progress made by Brazil can definitely be attributed to the launching of Science without Borders (SwB), a largescale outbound mobility program, oriented to the mobility of undergraduate students in

284

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

STEM areas. SwB was designed as a public international strategy with the objectives of strengthening the country’s human capital and to position Brazil as a player in the global scene of education (Zicman, Chapter 13). Unfortunately, because of changes in political orientation and economic crisis, this program was terminated in 2017, and the expected goals were not met, thus reducing its impact. By 2019, a new policy called the Capes/PrInt program had been launched with a different approach. This program aims at supporting HEIs to develop their own internationalization plans in accordance with development needs and is oriented to postgraduate level (Zicman, Chapter 13). In the case of Chile, this country obtained the overall score of “low” in the 2016 BC study (Ilieva and Peak, 2016), as well as “low” for Openness and Mobility, “very low” for Quality Assurance and Recognition, and “high” in Access and Sustainability. According to the 2019 BC study, Chile obtained an average score of “high” similar to those of India, Russia, Brazil, and Colombia for its International Strategy, which is an important improvement compared with the score obtained in 2016. Nevertheless, Chile scored “weak” in International Student Mobility and International Research Engagement, and “very weak” in Transnational Education. In sum, these results point out several weaknesses in Chilean public policy and national programs. Chilean progress was made thanks to several national programs, as described in Chapter 15 on Chile (González, Bernasconi, and Puyol) such as the Higher Education Quality Improvement Program (MECESUP), the International Cooperation Agency for Development (AGCID), the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT), and Becas Chile Program (BCP), to name just a few of them. As far as Colombia is concerned, in the 2016 BC study the country obtained an overall score of “low,” as well as “low” in Openness and Mobility, and “very low” in Quality Assurance and Degree Recognition, and “very high” in Access and Sustainability (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). Nevertheless, in the 2019 BC report, Colombia’s international strategy was evaluated as “high,” similar to the ones of Brazil, Chile, and India, which shows important progress made by the country. Worth mentioning here is that Colombia obtained the score of “strong” in International Student Mobility, data confirmed by the OECD (2019), showing an outbound mobility ratio of 1.8 percent for Colombia, which is similar to the OECD average. Nevertheless, some weaknesses of Colombia’s national strategy are still present. Like all other LAC countries, Colombia shows a very low inbound mobility of 0.2 percent, which is very far from the OECD average of 6 percent, and scores a “weak” in International Research Engagement, with a Gross Domestic Expenditure in R & D of 0.24 percent, very far from the OECD average of 2.37 percent and Brazil’s average of 1.27 percent. This situation is highlighted by Anzola-Pardo (Chapter 16, this volume), who declares that “no clear and well-developed policy of internationalization has been designed and HEIs continue working in internationalization efforts by themselves.” Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that several reviews on the nature and scope of the concept of internationalization have been made by different Colombian organizations such as: the Colombian Ministry of Education; the Colombia Challenge your Knowledge (CCYK) (a network of accredited universities whose mission is to promote Colombia as an international destination for HE and collaborative research); the Colombian Institute for the Promotion of Higher Education (ICFES), in partnership with the Colombian Network for Internationalization of Higher Education (RCI) of the Colombian Association of Universities (ASCUN) and Colciencias (Anzola-Pardo, Chapter 16). As a consequence, a step forward was made in the Colombian 2010–2014 National Development Plan by setting the strategic goal of achieving international

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

285

competitiveness of all economic sectors including education. Consequently, an explicit directive was given by the Ministry of National Education to promote internationalization by addressing HE quality assurance. As a result, internationalization has also been included in the Agreement for Higher Education (2014), and the report made by the Ministry of Education and CCYK on the system of indicators for internationalization shows that nowadays more HEIs have internationalization programs mostly due to the relevance placed by the National Council of Accreditation (CNA) on internationalization (Anzola-Pardo, Chapter 16). Additionally, three national organizations are funding outbound student mobility: COLFUTURO (scholarships to study abroad); ICETEX (scholarships offered by foreign governments); and the recently created, in 2019, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, formerly known as Colciencias. Concerning the Caribbean region, Cuba is an outstanding example of good practice, with both public and institutional policies to support internationalization. As a result, Cuba stands out as the country with the greatest results in international academic cooperation, despite the hostile international environment that limits its strategies. Internationalization is now a significant part of the strategic planning of the Cuban Ministry of Higher Education and is considered a transversal axis for the management and development of university processes, and for the creation and transfer of knowledge for scientific research activity (Insanally and Madera, Chapter 14). For the remaining countries of the Caribbean, a survey carried out with a representative sample of HEIs reported the absence of public polices and specific funding as a main external obstacle to internationalization (Insanally and Madera, Chapter 14). Mexico is the only case where no progress has been made, obtaining an overall score of “low” in the 2016 BC study, as well as in the 2019 one, being in the lowest position among the twenty nations assessed for its International Strategy (Usher et al., 2019). Additionally, Mexico gets scores of “very low” in Openness, Mobility, Quality Assurance and Recognition of Foreign Degrees (Ilieva and Peak, 2016); and “weak” in Transnational Education (Ilieva et al., 2017). The main progress in programs launched by the federal government in the previous administration has been the establishment the Mexican Agency for International Collaboration (AMEXCID); the initiative of PROMEXICO giving partial support to HEIs’ participation in annual meetings of NAFSA and the European Association of International Education (EAIE) (Marmolejo, Chapter 17); and the Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation and Research (FOBESII), to support student mobility to the United States. Unfortunately, once again with the arrival of a new government, these initiatives have been cancelled, or largely downsized in the case of FOBESII. In other words, Mexico is a good example of dispersion—isolating and discontinuing activities and programs without achieving a unified international strategy. As a consequence, without explicit and consistent funding provided by national programs, institutional efforts are rather insufficient for the country (Marmolejo, Chapter 17). Therefore, the most frequent internationalization activities are the most traditional ones, such as outbound student mobility based on institutional resources and cooperative agreements with foreign universities (Marmolejo, Chapter 17). As a result, Mexico shows very low ratios in both inbound and outbound student mobility, and insufficient funding for research collaboration. Therefore, the weak support by the Mexican government for internationalization is the principal obstacle to the process in the country and has led to the OECD conclusion that “The Mexican tertiary education system is weakly internationalized” (OECD, 2019a).

286

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In sum, the main finding for all chapters is that public policy to foster internationalization is still the most important limitation to the consolidation of the process in the whole region. This conclusion coincides with the one made by the first Regional Survey on Internationalization Trends in LAC carried out by the UNESCO Observatory on Internationalization and Networks in Latin America and the Caribbean (OBIRET), in which the “Lack of national policies and programs in support of internationalization,” “Limited public funding for internationalization,” and “Lack of continuity of national programs” were referred to as the main obstacles for the internationalization of the higher education sector in LAC (Gacel-Ávila and Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2018).

INTERNATIONALIZATION STRATEGIES AT AN INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL As Marmolejo (Chapter 17) points out: “Internationalization is no longer a foreign concept to HEIs in LAC, and in fact, it has been embraced—at least symbolically—as a core component in the institutional strategy in a majority of universities, especially in the largest and traditional public and private institutions.” Marmolejo underlines the key role of institutions, declaring that “in the absence of strong and constant government strategies, internationalization has been left for the most part to institutional initiatives for the last three decades.” This is one of the main and common characteristics of the LAC internationalization process and has been pointed by all the authors of the countries at study. Notwithstanding that most HEIs have adjusted their organizational structures to the needs of the internationalization process, some important deficiencies are continuously highlighted, such as a lack of planning, monitoring and quality assessment, and adequate funding; as well as poor professionalization of staff in international office (IO), among others. As a result, the international dimension of institutional policies is still largely marginal, and international activities are organized for individual interests rather than institutional priorities (Gacel-Ávila, Chapter 12). Furthermore, internationalization activities are generally traditional ones like outbound mobility for students and faculty. As Marmolejo (Chapter 17) mentions: “In reality, institutional efforts intending a comprehensive internationalization strategy are very limited.” The same point is underlined by Zicman (Chapter 13): “If it is true that the internationalization process of Brazilian HEIs is no longer at an early stage, there is a still strong national trend towards passive internationalization (outgoing student and faculty mobility) and low rates of attraction of international professionals and scholars.” Brazilian HEIs evaluate the internationalization process as a “low or medium priority” in the country. Using indicators of global rankings, González, Bernasconi, and Puyol (Chapter 15) designed an interesting tool in order to analyze the internationalization strategies adopted by the leading Chilean HEIs. Based on the two indicators international outlook of 2019 of The Times Higher Education (THE) and international research networks of the 2019 version of the QS global ranking, these authors identified the most common strategies for internationalization used by these universities. The outcome is that students’ exchange programs, foreign language courses, and double degrees are their main institutional strategies for internationalization with international branch campuses the least frequent. Three universities of the country are highlighted for adopting exemplar internationalization

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

287

strategies, which are the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, the University of Chile, and the University of Concepción. According, Insanally and Madera (Chapter 14), critical issues to be resolved for the progress of the internationalization process of the Caribbean are adequate institutional funding for capacity-building of staff and students through study abroad; a globalized curriculum; participation in regional and international conferences; and a targeted research output on issues related to the region’s vulnerabilities and development. Funding is also stressed by all countries to be critical, as (Zicman, Chapter 13) points out: Financing also remains a challenge to ensure the effectiveness of national and institutional policies in the internationalization of the country higher education; and the risk remains of not overcoming the situation that is still common among LAC HEIs, which promote internationalization in policy and discourse but have inadequate financial resources to support it in practice, just as the 2005 World Bank report pointed out 15 years ago. —de Wit, Jaramillo, Gacel-Ávila, and Knight, 2005 Zicman (Chapter 13) underlines that “This is a particularly sensitive point as HEIs are suffering huge budgetary limits, as well as contingency cuts in spending on universities and research institutions, which have particularly affected the federal funding agencies with a long track record of supporting international cooperation in Brazil.” In Mexico, as the priority of the new administration is the increase of access, budget for internationalization activities has been reduced. Worthy of mention is a change of orientation in international cooperation schemes. The new federal administration is limiting the importance of partnerships with developed countries, giving more weight to development cooperation projects with Central and South American countries. In terms of professionalization of internationalization structures and processes, Marmolejo (Chapter 17) points out a characteristic that can be generalized to the whole region: Governance structures are a weak point in internationalization efforts, as they still lack institutionalization, systematicity, and professionalization, especially in the public sector, since the election of authorities can be highly politicized making international organizational structures and teams relatively vulnerable. It has been seen regularly that as a new management team comes on board, an office devoted to internationalization may be affected by also having its leadership and staff subjected to changes. This causes a loss in institutional memory about internationalization and, in many cases, results in the arrival of a new team that may try to “reinvent the wheel” or to shut down initiatives and partnerships based on a political criterion all while remaining unaware of their importance.

OUTBOUND AND INBOUND MOBILITY IN LAC Worldwide, 2.38 percent of HE students are enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programs in foreign institutions, with 1.6 percent being the OECD average outbound mobility ratio and 6 percent being the average inbound mobility ratio (OECD, 2019a). In the case of LAC, outbound mobility is 1.22 percent, while inbound is 0.75 percent (Table 18.3). Measured by outbound and inbound mobility rates, LAC has one of the

288

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 18.3 Outbound and inbound mobility ratios by regions, 2017 Regions World Central Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Arab states Central and Easter Europe East Asia and Pacific North America and Western Europe South West Asia Latin America and the Caribbean

Outbound mobility ratio Inbound mobility ratio 2.38 12.98 4.76 4.33 2.33 1.98 1.98 1.43 1.22

2.38 2.42 1.71 2.95 3.39 1.49 7.33 0.16 0.75

Source: UNESCO, 2019.

TABLE 18.4 LAC international outbound and inbound mobility ratios, 2017 Outbound mobility ratio4 Europe OECD Latin America and the Caribbean Brazil Chile Mexico Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Haiti Grenada Jamaica

3.37 1.60 1.22 0.69 1.29 0.79 1.82 0.87 0.81 No data available 5.80 5.87

Inbound mobility rate5 7.26 6.0 0.75 0.24 0.38 0.57 0.20 No data available 1.73 No data available 71.74 No data available

Source: UNESCO, 2019; OECD, 2019a.

lowest mobility ratios in the world, especially in attracting international students from outside the region (Table 18.4). Of note are the cases of Brazil and Mexico. As the two largest HE systems of the region, they have lower outbound mobility ratios (0.69 and 0.79, respectively) than those of Chile (1.29) and Colombia (1.82) with medium size HE systems (Table 18.4). On the other hand, the low inbound mobility of Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Colombia highlights that LAC is not an attractive destination to international students. Furthermore, LAC inbound mobility mainly comes from the region itself, while outbound mobility is directed to developed regions (UNESCO, 2019), with the exception of the Dominican Republic and Granada. As an example, according to the last issue of Education at Glance (OECD, 2019a), 44 percent of Mexico inbound students come from neighboring countries. Outbound mobility remains low despite the efforts made by the different governments of the region. In the case of Brazil, as a result of SwB, outbound mobility ratio went from Outbound mobility ratio: total number of students from a given country studying abroad expressed as a percentage of total tertiary enrollment in that country. 5 Inbound mobility ratio: Total number of students from abroad studying in a given country expressed as a percentage of total tertiary enrollment in that country. 4

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

289

0.52 in 2013 to 0.69 in 2017. Nevertheless, it is still a low rate compared with the OECD 1.6 percent. Brazil’s inbound mobility is also very low (0.24 percent) if compared with the OECD average (6 percent) (Table 18.4). The same is true for Chile. Despite important efforts being made, the country still obtained a score of “weak” in international student mobility, according to the BC study (Ilieva et al., 2017); data confirmed by Table 18.4 showing an inbound student mobility of 0.38 percent, below the LAC’s ratio of 0.75 percent. In the case of the Caribbean, two different types of student flows can be differentiated: on the one hand, countries like Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti, with low ratios of outbound student mobility mainly taking place with other LAC countries (Table 18.4); and, on the other, the exception of Grenada with a very high inbound mobility (71.74 percent). These results should be attributed to the fact that almost three quarters of Grenada’s HE enrollment are foreign students in the field of medicine and veterinary aid (Insanally & Madera, Chapter 14). In summary, it can be said that the important efforts made by LAC in the last few decades in outbound student mobility still look insufficient when compared with other regions of the world, like Asia for instance. A key recommendation would be that besides increasing its outbound mobility ratio, the region should set up national and even regional strategies to attract more international students from outside the region (Gacel-Ávila and Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 2018).

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION IN RESEARCH According to Scopus, in 2017 LAC published 148,448 scientific articles representing 4.9 percent of the world production. It is worth mentioning that although Brazil reached 14th place in the SCImago database, and has achieved important progress to strengthen its research sector in the present decade, its international collaboration in research still remains rather low (33.87 percent) in comparison with Chile (62.42 percent), Colombia (48.93 percent), Mexico (42.71 percent), and Caribbean nations such as Cuba (62.79 percent) and the Dominican Republic (92.32 percent), (Table 18.5 ), (SCImago, 2019). Brazil and Mexico have the lowest indexes in international collaboration in research, a situation probably caused by the low level of funding policy for academic and research collaborations, as pointed out by the British Council report (Usher et al., 2019). Chile also obtained a score of “weak” in the BC report under International Research Engagement (Ilieva et al., 2017), due to a low funding in research of 0.36 percent of its GDP to R & D, compared with the OECD average of 2.25 percent, the world average of 1.68 percent, or the one of Brazil of 1.27 percent. Furthermore, Chile has fewer researchers per thousand total employment (1.1 percent),6 compared with the OECD average (8.3 percent), (González, Bernasconi, & Puyol, Chapter 15). Nevertheless, Chile compensates for this obstacle thanks to the quality of its researchers, as shown by its high level of citations per document (Table 18.5). Mexico and Colombia also obtained a “weak” in International Research Engagement (Ilieva et al., 2017), due to a scarce government funding with a GDE in R & D of 0.49

According to (UNESCO, 2019), Chile has 1.62 researchers per thousand economically active labor force.

6

290

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 18.5 LAC knowledge production, 2018

Brazil Chile Mexico Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Trinidad Tobago Jamaica Barbados Haiti

Country international rank

Journal articles

Citations per document

International collaboration in research %

14th 45th 28th 47th 84th 143th 126th 128th 159th 161

81,742 14,618 25,290 12,651 1,806 186 429 377 113 104

0.50 0.80 0.51 0.53 0.38 0.40 0.32 0.56 0.64 0.46

33.87 62.42 42.71 48.93 62.79 92.32 54.08 — — —

Source: SCImago, 2019.

TABLE 18.6 LAC International collaboration in research

Brazil Chile Mexico Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Trinidad Tobago Jamaica Barbados Grenada French Guiana Guyana

Scopus

SCImago

%

%

31.38 57.03 40.66 47.02 50.79 85.23 50.59 52.97 — — — —

33.87 62.42 42.71 48.93 62.79 92.32 54.08 64.19 68.14 95.40 81.90 77.05

Source: SCImago, 2019; Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Interamericana, 2019.

percent and 0.24 percent respectively, very far from the OECD countries’ average of 2.25 percent and even Brazil (1.27 percent). A low level of funding in research and in international research collaboration is a critical weakness of LAC, as the relationship between quality of research and international collaboration is more than confirmed in the different BC studies (Usher et al., 2019). In the Caribbean region, Cuba (0.36) and the Dominican Republic (0.35) have similar investment levels in R & D but a wide gap between them in scientific articles. While Cuba published 1,806 journal articles in 2018, the Dominican Republic published only 186 (Table 18.5). Nevertheless, both get similar citation indexes: (0.38) and (0.40) respectively, which are below the ones from Chile (0.80) and Brazil (0.50). Noticeably, the Dominican Republic has a very high percentage in international collaboration in research (92.32), compared with that of Cuba (62.79), which is also relatively high (Table 18.6).

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

291

POSITION OF LAC IN GLOBAL UNIVERSITY RANKINGS Latin American and Caribbean HEIs perceive that global university rankings are among the least important external drivers for internationalization process (Gacel-Ávila & Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 2018). The same has been pointed out by Insanally and Madera (Chapter 14), in the case of the Caribbean region, where rankings are mentioned as not being an accurate description of the regional reality. In the case of Brazil and Chile, which both have a high position in global university rankings, this is an indicator of quality, prestige, and internationalization (Zicman, Chapter 13; González, Bernasconi, and Puyol, Chapter 15). Brazil has the highest number (23) of universities in the region followed by Chile (5) in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). Mexico and Colombia have only two HE institutions in this global ranking, respectively (Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CURRICULUM More than half of the HEIs in LAC do not have a policy for internationalization of the curriculum, and are among the least active institutions of the world in collaborative international programs such as joint and double degrees (Gacel-Ávila and RodríguezRodríguez, 2018). This fact is confirmed by the recent 5th IAU Global Survey, pointing out that these programs are offered by more than half of HEIs in Europe, Asia and Pacific, and the Middle East, while only 40 percent of HEIs in LAC offer them, making this region the one with the lowest percentage (Marinoni, 2019). In the Caribbean region, a higher percentage (59 percent) report having this type of policy (Insanally and Madera, Chapter 14). In the Brazil, Chile, and Mexico chapters, all the authors mention that internationalization activities in their countries are still largely about traditional programs like outbound mobility for students and scholars.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAMS Deficiency in language proficiency is one of the biggest limitations for internationalization in LAC, and it is in fact the region where this obstacle is the highest ranked (Gacel-Ávila & Rodríguez, 2018). The chapters on Brazil and Chile are the only ones reporting national programs and public strategies with the intention of solving this problem. In the case of Brazil, one can mention Language without Borders (LwB), which was a program launched as a complement of SwB, aiming at improving levels of proficiency in English and other languages for students, as well as the training of teachers from language departments in public federal and state HEIs. LwB funded language courses and proficiency exams for more than 800,000 students, faculty members, and researches between 2014 and 2018. Unfortunately, the federal government ended the funding of this program in 2019, showing again the lack of continuity in public policies. The current FUTURE-SE Program promotes foreign language courses for faculties and researches through partnerships with private institutions for publishing in foreign journals (Zicman, Chapter 13). In Chile, the BCP program delivered free English, French, and German courses to students lacking sufficient language proficiency in order to comply with the language thresholds required by their university of destination (González, Bernasconi, and Puyol, Chapter 15).

292

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

ASSOCIATIONS AND NETWORKS FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION A very important part was played by international education associations in the spreading of the concept and the establishment of internationalization strategies and activities. Good examples are the cases of the Brazilian Association for International Education (FAUBAI) and the Mexican Association for International Education (AMPEI). These associations were founded as professional development organizations of individuals working in internationalization process at both public and private HEIs, and have had a key role in developing institutional capacity and creating awareness of the importance of internationalization in the HE agenda in their respective countries (Marmolejo, Chapter 17; Zicman, Chapter 13). In Chile, there are also several networks and alliances of HEIs dedicated to the promotion of internationalization, such as the Chilean Council of University Rectors (CRUCh) and the Interuniversity Development Centre (CINDA) (González, Bernasconi, and Puyol, Chapter 15). In the Caribbean region, the Universities Caribbean (UC), the Association of Caribbean Tertiary Institutions Network (ACTI), and the recently created Hemispheric University Consortium are examples of networks and associations of HE institutions working for the fostering of internationalization of HE.

DATA AND RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONALIZATION Generally speaking, the whole region lacks hard data on its HE internationalization process, although the situation has improved in the last decade. Some national university associations like ANUIES, AMPEI, ASCUN, and FAUBAI, to name just a few, carry out surveys on a regular basis to assess the progress made by the region in terms of internationalization process. But these data are usually focused on mobility flows, and rarely on the comprehensive internationalization process. This fact is confirmed by Zicman (Chapter 13), who underlines that although advances have been made in statistical surveys and indicators on the internationalization of higher education processes, the lack of assessment of the effectiveness of internationalization strategies has prevented more proactive governance in Brazilian HEIs. This data will be key for institutional-level and national-level decision making.

CONCLUSION In summary of all findings, it can be said that the most highlighted deficiency in LAC is, definitely, public policies and national programs to foster the internationalization process, which are, in the majority of countries, still absent, or, when existing, have limited impact due to their small scale, lack of continuity, and limited sustainability in the long run. To this important deficiency must be added the lack of institutionalization of internationalization strategies, as well as an insufficient professionalization of internationalization office. As a result, LAC has one of, if not the most fragile and inconstant internationalization processes of all the regions. Another limitation of the process is that internationalization activities are still largely traditional, mainly focusing on outbound mobility programs for students and scholars. According to the recent IAU Global Survey on Internationalization trends (Marinoni, 2019), LAC is the region putting the least emphasis on curricular design to develop global skills in students.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

293

Marmolejo (Chapter 17) anticipates for the future of the field in the region two different scenarios: A potential scenario is that the field may experience some sense of exhaustion due to the fact that universities face significant budget cuts, and this may significantly affect the scope of work and capacity of international affairs offices of higher education institutions. Under this scenario, internationalization efforts could be severely narrowed. This potential scenario is not far away from related concerns expressed at the global level. —Knight and De Wit, 2018; Marmolejo, 2019; Brandenburg, de Wit, Jones, and Leask, 2019 Another scenario is that higher education institutions could take the current context as a basis for a future re-engagement of its internationalization agenda. Such a renewed role of internationalization could be achieved if universities of Mexico and of the region envision that in the current and upcoming global context, preparing students with a global awareness and capacity is no longer simply a good idea but something necessary for future graduates. This scenario, although it can be seen as optimistic or even naive, requires higher education to design and implement bold curricular and regulatory transformations aimed at adapting academic programs accordingly. For Insanally and Madera (Chapter 14): “the internationalization of higher education is critical for sustainable development in Caribbean countries, but it must overcome the North–South model and promote South–South cooperation, to be effective.” These authors also stress the need to strengthen the region as an articulated multicultural community; nevertheless, the Caribbean remains a space under construction. According to these authors: It is desirable that the internationalization of higher education, its strategies and processes, contribute to defining a base of common knowledge on the Caribbean, regardless of national and local choices. There is also a need to develop and implement transnational policies to disseminate this shared knowledge. The process is necessarily based on a strong political will and especially on the involvement of university networks. This would result in mandatory cross-university and interuniversity education in partner universities. LAC HEIs are expected to become more active and focused on proposals with a greater impact for their respective country and the whole region. The region is in urgent need of an internationalization process that is more horizontal, inclusive, sustainable, strategic, and longer term, promoting greater international cooperation and integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into higher education. According to the British Council, the low scores obtained by Latin America in different aspects concerning internationalization mostly reflect the fact that these countries are still developing their HE systems and are less focused on internationalization as a policy issue; consequently, it is a lower priority policy area than in developed countries. Many LAC institutions declare that they would like to invest more in research, and international collaboration, but they do not do so because it is not a national priority and monetary resources are scarce (Usher et al., 2019). Nevertheless, in our opinion, this assertion should be mitigated, as LAC is a region where investment in HE and R & D is particularly low compared with other regions of the world, namely Asia. This could be interpreted as

294

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

a lack of vision of educational authorities and national governments, which definitely jeopardizes the future of the region and the countries that belong to it and, ultimately, the future of the generations to come. To these concerns, a further one could be added, as González, Bernasconi, and Puyol (Chapter 15) rightly underline, that some of the potential benefits of internationalized human capital may be lost for lack of social and economic opportunities in the different countries of the region, because of a negative context where stagnation in economy and low investment in higher education are prevailing. This peculiar LAC condition leads to the authors’ conclusion: “In other words, internationalization is only as good as the advantages it creates for a receptive environment in which it can blossom.”

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities (2019). Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking. com/arwu2019.html Brunner, J.J., and Miranda, D. (eds) (2016). Educación Superior en Iberoamérica. Informe 2016. Santiago de Chile: Universia-CINDA . De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard L., and Egron Polak, E. (eds) (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Ferreira, M., Ciro, A., Botero, J., Haimovich, F., and Urzúa, F. (2017). At a Crossroads. Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington DC : The World Bank Group. Gacel-Ávila, J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2018). Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Un Balance. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara, UNESCO-IESALC, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. Ilieva, J., and Peak, M. (2016). The shape of global higher education. Retrieved from: https:// www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/f310_tne_international_higher_education_report_ final_v2_web.pdf Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., Tsiligiris, V., and Peak, M. (2017). The Shape of Global Higher Education: International Mobility of Students, Research and Educational Provision. London: Bristish Council. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe Marinoni, G. (2019). IAU 5th Global Survey—Internationalization of Higher Education: An Evolving Landscape, Locally and Globally. DUZ Medienhaus and IAU, 2019. Available at: https://www.iau-aiu.net/Internationalization?lang=en OECD (2016). Education in Colombia. Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2017). Education in Chile. Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2019a). Education at a Glance 2019. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2019b). Main Science and Technology Indicators. Volume 2019, Issue 1. Paris: OECD Publishing. Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Interamericana (2019). Indicadores. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from http://www.ricyt.org/indicadores Red Indices (2019). Red Iberoamerican de Indicadores de ES . Retrieved from www.redindices. org SCImago (2019). SCImago, Journal and Country Rank. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr. com/ Secretaría de Educación Pública (2018). Principales cifra del Sistema Educativo Nacional (México). 2017–2018. Ciudad de México: Secretaria de Eduación Pública.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

UNESCO (2019). UNESCO Statistics. Retrieved from data.uis.unesco.org/ Usher, A., Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., and Tsiligiris, V. (2019). The Shape of Global Higher Education: The Americas. London: British Council. Retrieved from: https://www. britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/global-landscape/shape-global-highereducation-vol-5

295

296

SECTION III

North Africa and the Middle East

297

298

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Introduction to MENA Chapters WONDWOSEN TAMRAT

INTRODUCTION The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is a vast and highly diversified region in many of its substantive features such as resources, economy, geography, population, politics, and standards of living. The MENA region covers an area of over 15 million square kilometers, incorporating nineteen countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. At times countries such as Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Djibouti, Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan, and Western Sahara also appear on the same list. The region is also referred to as “Greater Middle East” or the “Arab world” with three sub-areas identified under it: the Maghreb countries in North Africa, the Gulf countries (GCC), and Levant. It is inhabited by around 6 percent of the world’s population, reaching 569 million in 2017 (UNDESA, 2017) and expected to double by 2100. The region has a gender ratio of roughly 51 percent male and 49 percent female. Youth aged 15–29 make up around 30 percent of the region’s population, or some 105 million people (UNDP, 2016). Despite the regional GDP of around 3.5 trillion and the average per capita GDP of about $2,000, which is twice that of developing countries as a whole, countries within the region differ greatly. The richest countries of the region are mostly located in the Arabian Gulf where two-thirds of the world’s known oil reserves are located. The four highest per capita income countries (Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates) enjoy an average per capita GDP of around $15,000. With few exceptions, intra-regional interaction in the form of trade in goods and services is weak in the region, restricted mainly to labor flows, and the trade connections within the region also tend to be mainly from the Gulf states to the oil importers. The MENA region has seen unprecedented changes and experienced tumultuous challenges over the last six decades. Many countries in the region have been forced to liberalize their economies and embark on structural adjustment programs owing to economic and socio-political factors and the influence of neo-liberal tendencies and the effects of globalization. While countries in the GCC have especially witnessed a radical transformation from mainly tribal communities to modern nations (Badri, 2019b), the region has since 2011 seen successive uprisings and social unrest driven by the dissatisfaction of educated youth. The region has also experienced a series of turmoils 299

300

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

triggered by civil war in countries such as Libya. The effects and impacts of these changes at global and regional levels, and on individual countries, have not been simple and transitory, to say the least. In general, the political, social, and economic dynamics the region has passed through have had their imprint on the way education in general and higher education in particular have been structured. It is these changes and their impacts in the internationalization of higher education (IHE) that the various chapters in this section discuss.

THE CHAPTERS Excluding this introductory chapter and a conclusion, seven chapters are included in this section. Two of the chapters are written from regional dimensions (MENA and GCC) while the rest address country-specific cases. Most of the chapters offer a brief scanning of the education, demographic, and economic and social tapestry of their country as background to the core points of discussion that follow. The main discussion in each chapter is geared towards outlining the major features of internationalization and the forces of change that shape the context of each country. The core areas covered in each chapter include: development of institutional and/or national IHE frameworks/policy or guidelines (processes, stakeholders, documentation, funding); approaches to IHE (e.g., structures, activities, outputs, outcomes, performance indicators, challenges, interventions, quality assurance, funding, any new/emerging topics); IHE research (locally generated knowledge, best practices of innovative strategies, emerging theories and methodologies); IHE and technology; and future aspirations and directions.

EDUCATION IN THE MENA REGION The MENA region has a long history of religious education that extends more than 1,400 years. The oldest universities in the world also existed in MENA long before they did in other parts of the globe though these universities are sometimes regarded as universities of European origin due to the model they adopted. For some countries like Egypt and Tunisia, the history of modern Western education goes back to the nineteenth century, but for most countries in the region the introduction of modern Western education and that of higher education in particular is a recent phenomenon. For too long education has assumed a central place in the modernization and development of countries in the region. Despite the region’s late start, the task of providing education at all levels has been entrusted mostly to the government as a result of which MENA countries on average dedicate 5 percent of GDP and 20 percent of government expenditures to education, which is comparably higher than other developing countries at similar levels of per capita income (World Bank, 2007). This has led to significant changes in areas such as the growth of schooling and reduction of illiteracy rate. Accordingly, the average level of schooling in the region has quadrupled since the 1960s and the region has managed to reduce the illiteracy rate by half since the 1980s. MENA countries have almost reached full primary education enrollment, and increased enrollment in secondary schools has grown threefold between 1970 and 2003, and fivefold at the higher education level (World Bank, 2007). This has enabled the region to become a place where the highest intergenerational mobility in education in the world has

INTRODUCTION TO MENA CHAPTERS

301

been attained (World Bank, 2019). In fact, the strong backing of free education by governments has helped the education system in the region to develop rapidly, and address the questions of equity and social mobility. The two exceptions have been Lebanon and Palestine, which are dominated by private schooling owing to political conflicts and civil war that contributed to the weakening and fragmentation of state power and government institutions (Buckner, 2011; El-Ghali, 2010). The increasing demand for education, the rising share of young graduates and public sector restructuring have not always made it possible for governments to accommodate the increasing demand for education at all levels or provide jobs for graduates on a continuous basis. Nor has it been possible to fully address concerns as regards quality of education, learner achievements, productivity and growth (Salehi-Isfahani, 2012; UNDP, 2016). In fact, as compared with the many changes that have occurred in the region in the spheres of politics, economy, and social development, the education systems in MENA are known to have remained the same (World Bank, 2019), calling for a variety of changes, interventions, and reforms. Over the last few decades, successive changes and transformations in the region have been driven by a multitude of factors that include the need to build a knowledge-based economy, the need to integrate into the global economy, and to keep pace with rapid changes at a global level. In this regard, universities are conceived not only as engines of economic and social transformation but also as a means to provide the population with the capabilities necessary to cope with the various aspects and challenges of globalization. Old institutions like the American University of Cairo, Beirut, and others that existed in the MENA region since the late nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, were often subjected to mounting criticisms about their failure to produce skilled graduates and for serving as centers of fundamentalist religious ideologies, intolerance, and Islamist terrorism (Badri, 2019b). The higher education crisis in the region has also been manifested in various forms including lack of access, and appropriate human, material, and financial resources. In many of the country case chapters included in this section it can be seen that changes in educational systems have been triggered by the need to improve challenges as regards access, lack of funding, and poor quality of the education sector. These and similar economic and political needs had their own impact in allowing neo-liberal tendencies to creep into the region through the influence of international organizations like the World Bank and Western governments. The introduction of new forms of delivery and operators, privatization, and the modernizing of educational systems have been heavily influenced by Western orientations in educational delivery, assessment, and quality assurance. Internationalization—as a newly emerging development in the region—has been viewed as a mechanism of enhancing academic values and quality, fostering cultural understanding, promoting mobility, innovation, and best practices in learning and teaching, employability of students in the international job market, and using existing Western mobility networks intensively (AlAgtash and Khadra, 2019). Higher education institutions (HEIs) in the region have responded to this call through a variety of mechanisms which reflect the form and pattern of internationalization that is continuously emerging in the region. This development has gradually permitted the choice of specific activities and strategies, academic values and standards, access to internationally recognized resources, legitimacy, and credible accreditation, which were sought in alignment with global educational systems and trends that began to be taken as important institutional goals (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019; Badri, 2019a).

302

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

MANIFESTATIONS OF IHE IN THE MENA REGION Internationalization of higher education in the MENA region is an evolving phenomenon. Despite the many features and faces of internationalization that have particularly emerged over the last two decades, the region is characterized by a consistent dearth of literature on the subject. The variations among countries in the region also pose challenges in terms of providing a comprehensive treatment of the subject and/or the possibilities of making swift generalizations. Notwithstanding these limitations, a quick scanning of the wider literature and that of the chapters included in this section provides a good grasp of the major features of IHE in the MENA.

RATIONALE FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION The rationale for internationalization could vary across countries in the region but it is essentially dictated by reasons relating to addressing the needs of a growing population, the need to build a knowledge economy, and the need to balance out the internationalization and globalization efforts with efforts to integrate the national and the local perspective (Vardhan, 2015). This need is reflected in all the chapters included here. Internationalization in the region was necessitated by demographic growth and a youth bulge, expanded secondary school completion, the need to develop skilled human capital to meet the challenges of the time, and increased participation of women in higher education in all countries, particularly in the GCC countries where 62 percent of enrolled students are now female (Ruby, Jaramillo, Henard, & Zaafrane, 2011; Badri, 2019b). The success rate of most of the initiatives taken in the last few decades has been substantial. Gross enrollment rates for secondary and tertiary levels have increased rapidly. Between 2000 and 2010 alone, there was a 66 percent increase in the number of higher education students in the region, which reached over 6 million (Ruby et al., 2011). Due to the increasing demand, the region has witnessed the surge of many types of institutions from 2000 onwards. This includes countries that, historically, had a restrictive tertiary enrollment rate. While there are countries such as Palestine and Libya that have moved to universal higher education with participation rates of 50 percent or more, there are also others such as Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan, which are making tremendous efforts to respond to the incessant demands from increasing numbers of secondary education graduates (Ruby et al., 2011). Currently 9 million students in the region are enrolled in universities, of which 10 percent are enrolled in postgraduate studies (8 percent master’s, 2 percent doctorate) (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). The continuing rise in the number of students has motivated various forms of institutional ownership and the emergence of different delivery modalities that include offshore campuses, and open and virtual universities. These new developments continue to create opportunities for increased internationalization of higher education in the region. It is worthy of note that a significant part of the drive towards IHE has come from government policies, strategies, and interventions that promote rapid expansion, modernization, and a renewed emphasis towards the development of the region’s human capital. The policy support and government backing towards the changes in the region are a remarkable development across all countries included in this handbook and appear to speed up the process of change being witnessed. This is mainly reflected in the national documents, plans, strategies, and actions devised both at country and institutional levels. A cursory glance at the chapters on Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia gives further insight on

INTRODUCTION TO MENA CHAPTERS

303

how IHE assumes a high level of importance within the national strategies of governments and is addressed through the strategic plans of universities. Apart from setting out strategic directions that endorse the need for international orientation of the HE system, governments are involved in creating appropriate structures (units, committees, etc.) that are deployed to manage the various features and manifestations of the internationalization of higher education.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND TRANSNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION (TNHE) The internationalization of higher education in the MENA region continues to be accomplished through a number of cooperation schemes that include educational, technical, and technological areas. One such process is what has sometimes been called “Americanization.” The major manifestation of this trend has been the establishment of extensive partnerships with foreign universities in the Global North. This process has been facilitated by governments in places such as the Gulf Cooperation Countries where special schemes of motivation have been offered to attract the best universities in the world. Transnational higher education (TNHE) is a very recent phenomenon in the Middle East and North African region. Most developments happened in the past fifteen years and many after 2000. TNHE in the MENA region is exhibited in various forms including the opening of branch campuses, franchise arrangements, etc. Countries in the region in general and the Gulf States in particular have been the largest recipients of transnational higher education globally (Wilkins, 2011). The level, features, and modalities of TNHE pursued exhibit significant differences across the region but around 60 percent of foreign institutions that operate in the region have opened since the year 2000 (Miller- Idriss and Hanauer, 2011). Many institutions available in the region are assumed to have either joint programs or branch campuses of foreign universities. Although exact figures may be hard to obtain, Miller and Hanauer (2011) claim that nearly one third of the branch campuses of foreign institutions worldwide are located in the MENA region, particularly in the GCC countries. There are, of course, variations in ownership, size, governance, financing, selectivity, and academic offering (Ruby et al., 2011). Countries like UAE and Qatar are at the forefront of the “branch campus model” that subscribes to “institution mobility” (Vardhan, 2015; Badri, 2019a). In fact, the UAE hosts over forty international branch campuses, which represents almost a quarter of all international branch campuses worldwide (Becker, 2009). Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Kuwait appear to favor the partnership model, with local universities developing programs affiliated to some foreign institutions. Bahrain is especially popular for the “twinning model” in which students study for a part of the program in the host country and another in the home country (Vardhan, 2015; Driouchi and Achehboune, 2014; Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). The Sultanate of Oman, on the other hand, has no international branch campuses, but does have private higher education institutions. It should be noted that, despite its concentration, the opening of branch campuses is not a phenomenon restricted to the GCC area. The major source of countries in these partnership schemes are the United States (which dominates branch campuses), the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Singapore, and India. Russia, Iran, and Pakistan also have foreign campuses in the

304

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

region. Most of the foreign institutions are drawn to the region by reasons of economic rationales and the search for a new market (Vardhan, 2015). The chapter on Tunisia shows that there are countries within the region that could be involved in the establishment institutions and in sending staff to particular countries in the region where they are needed. The aforementioned type of scheme is not the only form of international cooperation in the region. As noted by Bekele and Ibrahim (Chapter 24, this volume), TNE provision in Egypt “mainly consists of double/multiple and joint degree programs delivered in collaboration with local public and private HEIs.” In Morocco, devised partnership schemes include not only branch campuses but also academic mobility and study and research programs. The list for Tunisia extends to PhD supervision, academic mobility, international programs and institutions, quality assurance, research, and ICT. In Libya, international cooperation is used as a mechanism that enhances teaching and quality of education, knowledge transfer and research, and graduate programs.

ACADEMIC MOBILITY The chapters on Jordan and Tunisia indicate that the flow of students from the Arab region to the West goes as far back as the nineteenth century, but the process of IHE started in the 1960s and accelerated after the 1990s due to the unprecedented sociopolitical, economic conditions and technological advances that transpired both in the West and in the MENA region. As Vardhan’s chapter shows, despite the limited attention it has so far attracted and the meagre data available, the mobility dimension in the MENA region comprises both inbound and outbound mobility (Chapter 27, this volume). All chapters invariably indicate the interest on the part of universities to be involved in academic mobility of various natures, though their purposes could be slightly different from one country to another. Mobility in the region appears to involve both short- and long-term movements, with funding coming from either national governments themselves and/or paid through joint projects or scholarship schemes arranged between countries. Scholarship is a dominant feature of student mobility in the region. Although Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon host a significant number of students from outside, the number of outgoing students from the region is relatively high compared with the number of inbound students. According to Ruby et al. (2011), the main destination of MENA students is France, which hosts 30 percent of outbound students, followed by the United States (11 percent), and the UK (9 percent). The biggest cohorts of MENA students come from Morocco, Iran, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia, who together constitute over 40 percent of all MENA student mobility. Egypt sends a relatively small number (8,700 students, or 0.4 percent) of its higher education students out of the country, significantly less than Tunisia (17,900 students/5 percent of its higher education enrollments) (Ruby et al., 2011). Student mobility can sometimes take a different form, as in the case of Tunisia where schemes of international credit mobility are employed in collaboration with international partners. Historical ties with host countries, geographical positions, and language appear to influence where and how academic mobility is directed. For instance, Tunisia and Morocco have more attachment with France while Libya’s link is more with Britain. The overall trend indicates that the dominant link is with Europe and North America. Staff mobility (both inbound and outbound) is also a common phenomenon across many countries in the region with the variety of benefits that comes with it. The benefits extend from

INTRODUCTION TO MENA CHAPTERS

305

availing qualified teachers to the sector to the promotion of cross-cultural exchanges and cooperation. Staff mobility is often a process facilitated through a variety of policy directions and support schemes, including payment from the university coffers, as in the case of Jordan and Tunisia.

PRIVATIZATION Another noticeable change in the region is the privatization of higher education, which is taking place at a tremendous pace. The process of privatization in the region is manifested in many guises and has been assisted by the continued student demand that outpaces the growth of the higher education provision in many countries, forcing governments to institute new policy directions. Libya is a good example in this regard. Jordan was the first country to adopt to this change and currently nearly one third of Jordanians pursue their higher education in private universities. In UAE the majority of higher education institutions are privately owned (Godwin, 2006). It is now quite common to see local rulers and wealthy nationals in the region launching private institutions based on foreign, particularly American, models (Barnawi, 2012; Barnawi and Al Hawsawi, 2017; Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). As noted by Bekele and Ibrahim (Chapter 24), even in countries like Egypt the opening of International Branch Campuses has become one of the most salient developments recently, altering the higher education landscape in the country. However, this is not necessarily a common pattern across all countries in the region. In countries such as Jordan the pattern is not similar, despite the absence of provision that forbids opening foreign HEIs. In Egypt the phenomenon of privatization is not limited to the establishment of private universities but also takes the form of charging tuition fees for special courses such as the teaching of foreign language within the public universities and private tutoring (Hartmann, 2008). Similarly, the chapter on Morocco indicates that the privatization surge is not only about the increasing presence of private institutions but also about changes within the public system. The chapter on Tunisia further indicates that the peculiar nature of new developments includes the excellence of the private sector over public institutions in some areas such as attracting international cooperation. However, it should also be noted that while there is a rising number of private providers in the higher education systems of the region, the influence of government institutions still continues to be dominant in many countries (Godwin, 2006). For instance, privatization in Egypt and Tunisia has not reached the level witnessed in Jordan. Today the percentage of youth in higher education in both countries is approximately 30 percent, but the percentage in private universities is less than 5 percent, although it does keep rising (Sedrine, 2009).

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CURRICULA Internationalization through the promotion of English is another approach pursued across the MENA region. The increasing tendency towards this direction has been achieved against the earlier loyalty to local languages, especially Arabic. In most countries, the approach to language prioritizes English teaching, although Arabic has not lost attention as the chapter on Jordan shows. The chapters on Morocco and Tunisia clearly indicate that English is even gaining ground where a foreign language like French was

306

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

previously predominant. For instance, Tunisia has adopted a radical departure from the common study programs that are taught in either Arabic or French. In some countries like Libya a similar trend has been observable since 2000 despite the earlier decision of the former Gaddafi government to remove English from schools. A key component of the change in the region has been the decision by governments to switch from Arabic to English as a medium of instruction as well as importing English products and services to their educational systems (Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). The aim behind this major shift has been to accommodate the evolving socio-economic needs of citizens, to ensure international participation in the global economy and education, and to provide the political and economic connection to the rest of the world (Corbyn, 2009; Wilkins, 2011; Barnawi 2012). There is a wider understanding in the region that graduates must develop advanced English communication skills to use English as a language of modern communication and technology to compete in an increasingly globalized labor market. The responsibility of promoting English has been entrusted not only to national governments but has also been taken up by international consultancy groups, and Western educated expatriate faculty and university leaders who form the majority of academics (80 percent to 95 percent) in the non-public universities (Hamdan, 2013; Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). However, despite the new developments in promoting English as providing social, linguistic, political, cultural, intellectual, and economic advantages, its fast-growing international role in higher education (HE) is being questioned as a product and a promoter of neoliberalism (Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). It is also challenged by the continued presence of cultural and linguistic heritages that can conflict with the promotion of foreign languages. Another common feature of the region is the lack of involvement in IoC (internationalization of the curriculum), which has not been widely endorsed in policy directions nor in practical activities of many countries and universities. The Jordan chapter offers further details on this. ICT (information communication technology) shows a similar pattern since its application is limited to some contexts as the experience in Libya and Tunisia shows.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF RESEARCH Compared with other regions, higher education institutions in the MENA region are less engaged in knowledge creation, international knowledge networks, and innovation, which has made research achievements within the region quite meagre. MENA countries lack qualified tertiary level faculty, sufficient researchers, and financial resources, infrastructure, teaching and research facilities, and motivated and experienced staff that would offer the competitive basis for research undertakings. Political interest and poor supporting environments also contribute to the problem. Badry (2019b) notes that even countries in GCC nations that have heavily invested in education, including the provision of significant financial incentives to foreign universities, allocate only around 1 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to research and development (R & D). Some efforts had been made by governments in United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, which launched research initiatives, including scientific research commissions, centers of excellence, science councils, business and technology parks, and incubators but the initiatives lack consolidation at the regional level to stimulate cooperative research that addresses common pressing problems in the region (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). In addition, social constraints on access to data, particularly in the

INTRODUCTION TO MENA CHAPTERS

307

social sciences, do not facilitate conducting research in some parts of the region. According to Badry (2019a: 6), “major international databases, such as Elsevier’s Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, etc., do not index Arabic medium journals resulting in an underrepresentation of research in Arabic on the international scene.” However, all is not gloom and doom. There are some changes and a few shining examples within the region. The chapter on Tunisia offers a unique example of how involvement in research could be augmented through a concerted effort and positive policy directions from governments that enhance achievements in this area. Research is similarly emphasized in Egypt and Jordan, as the chapters on both countries show. In Saudi Arabia, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology has adopted another model by engaging world-class universities to help design its programs and has equally created a “Global Research Partnership” that allows faculty and students to access top researchers and research facilities from four world-class research universities (Ruby et al., 2011).

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION Despite the various efforts made, higher education in the MENA region is still under developed due to limitations in providing quality education, quality standards, lack of policy directions, and inadequate educational resources that impede progress (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). According to Ruby (2010) most of the institutions in MENA countries face problems meeting international quality standards. This is why the issue of quality assurance continues to be a high priority in the region. Some countries (e.g., Tunisia) have established the legal framework for quality assurance assisted by foreign partners. This is no surprise in the light of the globalization of higher education, increasing student enrollment, and the mushrooming of private institutions, which, being new developments in the region, can pose a serious threat unless systems and mechanisms are designed for recognition of institutions and qualifications. It is believed that effective, transparent quality assurance mechanisms, including certification and accreditation procedures for cross-border education, will maximize the benefits for students, programs, and/or institutions and national systems as a whole (Ruby, 2010). In the interest of setting up quality systems, countries in the MENA region have been establishing national commissions for quality assurance and accreditation or motivating the development of quality assurance programs and capacity building projects to uplift the quality of their national higher education systems (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). The Centre for Quality Assurance and Accreditation (CQAA) in Libya and the National Evaluation, Quality Assurance and Accreditation authority (NEQAA) in Tunisia discussed in the chapters on these respective countries are typical examples. There are also countries like Tunisia that are emulating practices in the European Union (EU) to handle the new quality needs of their education systems. The MENA region also harbors the need for a regional higher education space to promote regional harmonization between higher education institutions, which is considered essential in facilitating mobility, recognition, credit transfer, and quality as well as enhancing harmonization between higher education systems in the region (AlAgtash and Khadra, 2019). However, given the vast differences in the systems and structures of the higher education systems of MENA countries, creating such a space remains a difficult task since it demands proper policy directions, agreement, and regional consensus. In this regard, the development in 2007 of the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE) could be regarded as an initial step in the

308

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

right direction but much needs to be done yet in the harmonization of the region’s system (Vardhan, 2015).

CONCLUSION Internationalization has been widely promoted in MENA’s higher education systems necessitated by demographic factors, economic objectives, and the drive towards the twenty-first century knowledge economies. Both the broader literature and the specific chapters in this section highlight the importance of IHE for the region in terms of the creation of wider access, the enhancement of gender equity, the diversification of the educational landscape, the emergence of private higher education institutions (PHEIs), the establishment of quality assurance (QA) mechanisms, and access to global knowledge. While it is being promoted through a variety of policy directions and strategies, IHE remains both a challenge and an opportunity in the region. In fact, promoting IHE is saddled with a variety of conflicts and tensions that emanate from operating in a region that is endowed with long history and rich legacy of religion, culture, and written language. As noted by Attari (Chapter 21, this volume), “much as there are aspirations and plans there are constraints and impediments, tensions between nationalization and internationalization, between centrality and independence of universities and between service-oriented and profit-oriented higher education with all the ramifications that such tensions leave.” Another related challenge is the use of a foreign language as a medium of instruction, which is echoed in almost all the chapters in this section. Badri (2019b) argues that regardless of which process is followed, the region’s internationalization strategies lack an explicit dual language in education policy that balances between improving Arabic and English language skills. Governments have, in some cases, changed their course of action and reinstated Arabic as a medium of education in the public universities, as in the case of Qatar where in 2019 the Emir of Qatar signed a law stipulating that “universities and higher education institutions of the State of Qatar [must] teach in Arabic language and conduct studies and scientific [research] as well in Arabic” (Abdulmalik, 2019). A similar approach was adopted by UAE leaders who launched the “Arabic Charter” to promote the Arabic language and centers of excellence to develop the use of Arabic in digital technologies and translation in 2012. As noted by Vardhan (Chapter 27 in this volume), there is an increasing concern in the region regarding erosion of the local language, culture, and value system. However, the push for English shows no sign of abating despite such oppositions. Overall, changes in the region have also been constrained by deficiencies in areas such as quality of education, skill development, and employment and research. Internationalization has not enabled the region to significantly improve quality and build an “adequate scientific and technological infrastructure to absorb, apply and create knowledge” (Badri, 2019b). Ensuring the quality of state-owned or private local institutions and that of international institutions that operate in the region, has been equally identified as one major challenge policymakers and governments are facing in the region (Vardhan, 2015). Apart from complaints related to lack of critical, analytical, technical, innovative, and communication skills of graduates, employability has gone down (Hayes, 2018; Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). The percentage of citizens employed in the private sector is said to be insignificant in countries such as Qatar and the UAE (less than 1 and 5 percent respectively) in addition to the dependence of the GCC economies

INTRODUCTION TO MENA CHAPTERS

309

on foreign laborers and expatriate professionals. In a similar vein, the region’s capacity in the production of knowledge continues to be limited due to a lack of appropriate funding of research. Given the hitherto achievements and deficiencies, much remains to be done in terms of properly addressing both the benefits and pitfalls of internationalization in the MENA region. The challenge remains in striking the needed balance between the needs for safeguarding past traditions and identity while being responsive to social, economic, and educational needs and benefiting the region with developments that could come through the internationalization of higher education which requires long-term planning and sufficient resources. Badri (2019a) notes the dangers of expanding higher education landscapes in the absence of long-term strategies that combine modernization with clearly articulated national needs and policies. Without planned directions, IHE in the MENA region may continue to be viewed more as a threat to local heritage and traditions than as an engagement with the potential for facilitating growth and development.

REFERENCES Abdulmalik, A. (2019). New law protecting Arabic language. The Peninsula, January 27. Retrieved from: https://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/opinion/27/01/2019/New-lawProtecting-Arabic-language Al-Agtash, S., and Khadra, L. (2019). Internationalization context of Arabia higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(2): 68–81. Badry, F. (2019a). Internationalization of higher education in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Impact on the national language. Background paper prepared for the Arab States 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report. Badry, F. (2019b). Expanding the UAE’s higher education horizon: Path towards a sustainable future. In Gallagher, K. (ed.), Education in the United Arab Emirates: Innovation and Transformation. Singapore: Springer, pp. 57–73. Barnawi, O.Z., and al-Hawsawi, S. (2017). English language education policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current trends, issues and challenges. In Kirkpatrick, R. (ed.), English Language Education Policy in the Middle East and North Africa. Language Policy (199-122). New York: Springer International Publishing. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-46778-8_12 Barnawi, O.Z. (2012). CEFR, One Size, Fits ALL? Paper presented at 18 Annual TESOL Arabia Conference, Dubai, UAE , 8–10 March. Becker, R.F.J. (2009). International Branch Campuses: Markets and Strategies. London: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE). Buckner, E. (2011). The role of higher education in the Arab state and society: Historical legacies and recent reform patterns. Comparative and International Higher Education, 3, 21–26. Corbyn, Z. (2009). Saudi Arabia begins putting minds to challenges of future, Times Higher Education, September 24. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/408293.article (accessed October 10, 2013). David, S.A., Taleb, H., Scatolini, S.S., Al-Qallafc, A., Al-Shammari, H.S., and George, M.A. (2017). An exploration into student learning mobility in higher education among the Arabian Gulf Cooperation Council countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 55: 41–48. Driouchi, A., and Achehboune, A. (2014). Mobility of Students from Arab Countries and Internationalization of Higher Education with Application to Medical Studies. MPRA Paper No. 58858. Available at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/58858/

310

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Godwin, S.M. (2006). Globalisation, education and Emiratisation: A study of the United Arab Emirates. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 27(1): 1–14. Hamdan, A. (2013). An exploration into “private” higher education in Saudi Arabia: Improving quality and accessibility? The ACPET Journal for Private Higher Education, 2(2): 33–44. Hayes, A. (2018). Deconstructing the “magnetic” properties of neoliberal politics of education in Bahrain. Globalisation, Societies and Education. http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/1590/1/ pre-print percent20revision.pdf Le Ha, P., and Barnawi, O.Z. (2015). Where English, neoliberalism, desire and internationalization are alive and kicking: Higher education in Saudi Arabia today. Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2015.1059436 Miller -Idriss, C., and Hanauer, E. (2011). Transnational higher education: Offshore campuses in the Middle East. Comparative Education, 47(2): 181–207. Ruby, A. (2010). Thinking About a Branch Campus? Think Twice. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 21. Available at: http://goo.gl/OceUFF (accessed October, 2013). Salehi-Isfahani, D. (2012). Education, jobs, and equity in the Middle East and North Africa. Comparative Economic Studies, 54, 843–861. UNDP (2016). Arab Human Development Report. Youth and the Prospects for Human Development in a Changing Reality. New York: UNDP. Vardhan, J. (2015). Internationalization and the changing paradigm of higher education in the GCC countries. SAGE Open, 5(2) https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244015580377 Wilkins, S. (2011). Who benefits from foreign universities in the Arab Gulf States? Australian Universities Review, 53(1): 73–83. World Bank (2007). The Road Not Traveled: Education Reform in the Middle East and North Africa, MENA development report Executive Summary.

CHAPTER TWENTY

Internationalization of Higher Education in the GCC Region Emerging Patterns and Challenges WONDWOSEN TAMRAT

BACKGROUND The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), or the Arabian Gulf, is one of the three subregions classified under the MENA region. Driven by factors such as geographical proximity, similar political systems, and adoption of free market economy that member countries share, the GCC was established as a political union consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates on May 25, 1981 with multifarious social and economic objectives (Al Khaldi, 2007). According to Al Khaldi (2007: 9), the primary objectives of GCC are to: ●

●

Formulate similar regulations in various fields such as economy, finance, trade, customs, tourism, legislation, and administration Foster scientific and technical progress in industry, mining, agriculture, water and animal resources

●

Establish scientific research centers

●

Set up joint ventures

●

Encourage cooperation of the private sector

●

Strengthen ties between their peoples.

The population of the GCC region has risen from 48.1 million in 2012 to 55.4 million in 2017, with approximately 33 percent below the age of 23 (Alpen Capital, 2018). The population is further expected to reach 62 million by 2022, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.3 percent between 2017 and 2022. The school age population of K-12 education is also likely to increase from 11.3 million in 2016 to 12.1 million in 2022, which should continue to boost the demand for education in the region (Alpen Capital, 2018).

311

312

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The GCC nations are amongst the wealthiest in the world owing to sitting on twothirds of the globe’s known hydrocarbon resources. The per capita income of the region is more than double the global average. In 2016 the average per capita income in the region stood at US$ 25,266 compared with a global average of US$ 10,376 (Alpen Capital, 2018). In the same year Qatar, with a per capita income of US$ 58,247 was ranked as the wealthiest nation in the world, with UAE (US$ 35,384) and Kuwait (US$ 25,869) also featuring among the top ten (Alpen Capital, 2018). Countries in the GCC have hence witnessed a radical transformation of their societies from mainly tribal communities to modern nations (Badry, 2019a). As a result, national citizens enjoy several benefits such as free public education and healthcare, low taxation, and high personal income, which gives them the financial wherewithal to accommodate their quest for quality education and an opportunity for a variety of education providers coming to the region. The GCC region has seen unprecedented social and economic changes over the last six decades. The effects of globalization, economic and socio-political factors, and the influence of neo-liberal tendencies and other external factors have influenced countries in the region to liberalize their economies. The effects and impacts of these changes in the education sector have been substantial, to say the least. This chapter examines the nature of changes over the last few decades and profiles the current state of the internationalization of higher education (IHE) in the region. After a brief background of the educational context given below the chapter offers the drivers of changes and outlines the major features of IHE. It will finally offer the conclusion of the study.

EDUCATION IN THE GCC The roots of traditional education in the region are traced back to the teachings of Islam, which originated in Saudi Arabia 1,400 years ago. Traditional education was given in most countries in the mosques where students were taught to recite the Qur’an (Bahgat, 1999). The antecedent to Arab higher education is also related to the Islamic renaissance in Baghdad, Iraq, some eleven centuries ago, that involved the Abbasid caliphs who established libraries and conservatories (Ghabra and Arnold, 2007). According to Ghabra and Arnold (2007), for the next 500 years, Arabic became the language of science through which cutting-edge research was conducted in cities such as Cairo, Damascus, and Tunis. However, this intellectual heritage began to be replaced by imported European science and technology in the nineteenth century. Although Western science and technology was welcomed, implementing the high standards of Western education was not an easy task as it faced challenges throughout the twentieth century (Ghabra and Arnold, 2007). Modern education, which came with the opening of modern schools, is more of a recent phenomenon in many of the GCC countries. Higher education is similarly a recent development as can be evidenced through the establishment of the first public university in Saudi Arabia, King Saud University, in 1957 followed by Kuwait University in 1966, Qatar University in 1973, United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) in 1976, and Sultan Qaboos University (Oman) and University of Bahrain in 1986 (Badry and Willoughby, 2016). This development is mostly attributed to the growth of the region’s wealth obtained from oil revenues, which showed a significant change during the oil price hike in the 1970s. This encouraged countries in the region to spend their huge wealth on projects that would have fundamental implication for their future development. Hence, the newly envisaged projects mainly focused on the creation of socio-economic

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GCC REGION

313

infrastructure and public bureaucracy, the development of agricultural and industrial sectors, and the improvement of social services including health care and education systems (Bahgat, 1999: 128). Given the region’s wealth and resources, the need to have a labor force that drives growth in the region has been an immediate necessity and one of the major factors that fueled the growth of education in the region. While the region’s focus until the mid1990s had been on expanding primary and secondary education, the outcome of this effort forced countries to later open up increased higher education opportunities (Coffman, 2003). Another aspect of the education sector specific to the gulf region has been the increasing demand for education of children of expatriate communities living long term in the GCC. This group comprises half of the population in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and 80 percent of the population in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (Coffman, 2003). Since children from expatriate families are excluded from public universities as noncitizens, their needs can only be accommodated through the private sector, which is thriving in the region. Still another related impetus to the growth of higher education is the demand from female students who are often discouraged from traveling outside of their countries for educational purposes influenced by traditional tribal customs (Coffman, 2003). This has created the need for widening the education sector to accommodate the demand from the female population in the region. Currently about 60 percent of graduates of Gulf universities are female (Coffman, 2003). In its own way, this is contributing to gender parity in the higher education sphere of the region. The existing relation of the Arab world with the West has also had its own contribution towards the demand for quality education without the need for traveling abroad. Although the region had better educational relations with the West before September 11, 2001, which encouraged families to send their children to places such as the United States, Europe, or Canada for their further education, the growing challenges of anti-Arab sentiments, visa regulations, and living abroad have forced many students to stay behind and seek regional education (Ghabra and Arnold, 2007). This process is further aided by a shift in public opinion that favors instruction in English, a preference for a Western-based curriculum, and the growing dominance of the American model of higher education, especially for programs such as MBAs, business executive education, and related technical and practitioner-oriented fields that began to be offered in the Arab world (Tolmacheva, 2008). Looking at the achievements over the last few decades, one can understand that the GCC is indeed a region that has witnessed significant educational upheavals within a limited period of time. This partly alludes to a substantial budget allocated by respective governments to the sector. According to Alpen Capital (2018), Saudi Arabia and UAE allocate more than 20 percent of their total expenditure towards the education sector, followed by Oman (12.8 percent), Bahrain (10.5 percent), Kuwait (10.2 percent), and Qatar (9.4 percent). However, average government spending on education as a percentage of total expenditure has declined marginally from 15.6 percent in 2016 to 14.1 percent in 2018 owing to the economic slowdown witnessed across the region (Alpen Capital, 2018). The task of providing education at all levels in the region has been entrusted mostly to the government that has made education accessible and mandatory to all members of society. Across the GCC, education is free for all nationals and has become compulsory up to the primary level; in countries such as UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait, education is even mandatory up to the secondary level (Alpen Capital, 2018). This has contributed not only to the rapid increase in enrollments across all levels of education in the shortest period possible but also in providing additional opportunities for addressing

314

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 20.1: Educational participation at all levels in GCC. Source: Author based on data in Alpen Capital (2018).

the questions of equity and social mobility. As a result, in 2016 the GER for the primary and secondary levels in the region exceeded 100 percent, while GER for the tertiary segment exceeded 50 percent (Alpen Capital, 2018). Current achievements bespeak a regional success rate that outstrips other developing nations and even in some respects compares to those of many developed countries. According to Alpen Capital (2018), the GER at the primary, secondary, and tertiary level in the GCC outperformed or were at par with the world average in 2016.

DRIVERS AND RATIONALE FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have put education reform at the forefront of their priorities and development agendas. This decision has been influenced by the corresponding political, socio-economic, and demographic changes in the region; the need to build a knowledge-based economy and integrate the region into the global economy; the changes at the levels of primary and secondary education; the rapid expansion of the college-age population; and the demand for developing a national work force fit for the twenty-first century (Tolmacheva, 2008; Al Aleeli, 2019). The reform agenda adopted across the GCC has led to the introduction of new forms of delivery and operators, privatization and modernizing educational systems, assessment and quality assurance, and what has been called “imported internationalization.” In fact, internationalization is mostly viewed as a mechanism of enhancing academic values and quality, fostering cultural understanding, promoting mobility, innovation, and best practices in learning and teaching, employability of students in the international job market, and using existing Western mobility networks intensively (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). Higher education institutions (HEIs) in the region have been responding to this call through a variety of mechanisms which reflect the form and pattern of internationalization activities that continue to unfold across the region and in individual countries.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GCC REGION

315

Although the rationale for internationalization might show slight variations among countries, it is mostly influenced by the needs of a growing population, the need to build a knowledge economy, and the need to balance out the internationalization and globalization efforts with efforts to integrate the national and local perspective (Vardhan, 2015). Internationalization in the GCC region was hence necessitated by demographic growth and a youth bulge, expanded secondary school completion, the need to develop skilled human capital to meet the challenges of the time, and increased participation of women in higher education in countries where 62 percent of enrolled students are now female (Ruby, 2010; Badri, 2019a). It is worthy of note that a significant part of the drive towards IHE continues to be steered by government policies, strategies, and interventions that promote rapid expansion, modernization, and a renewed emphasis towards the development of human capital that can meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. As reflected in the national documents, plans, strategies, and actions devised both at country and institutional levels, the policy support and government backing towards the changes witnessed in the region is a remarkable development across all countries. Despite the many faces of internationalization that have particularly evolved over the last two decades, the region is characterized by a dearth of literature on the subject. Notwithstanding this limitation, the sections below will identify the major profile and patterns of IHE in GCC through a general review and analysis of available secondary data.

PATTERNS OF IHE IN THE GCC REGION Transnational higher education is a very recent phenomenon in the GCC region. Dakhli and El Zohairy (2013) note that, until 1997, only two universities offered a typical American-style education in the Middle East. These were the American University of Beirut (est. 1866) and the American University in Cairo (est. 1919) (Robison, 2005). However, in the past 15 years and especially after 2000, many developments have been witnessed making the Gulf States the largest recipients of transnational higher education globally (Wilkins, 2011). It is to be noted that around 60 percent of foreign institutions that operate in the region have opened since the year 2000 (Miller-Idriss and Hanauer, 2014). The continuing rise in the number of students in the region has motivated various forms of institutional ownership and the emergence of different delivery modalities, creating ample opportunities for increased internationalization of higher education. Universities have been encouraged to adopt to this new trend of educational provision and internationalize through a variety of cooperation schemes. One such scheme is what has sometimes been called “Americanization”—a type of higher education identified for its distinctive characteristics that include an American curriculum and textbooks; courses provided in English; the use of English-speaking faculty educated in the West; affiliation with mainly American, British, Australian, and Canadian universities; formal accreditation from independent US accreditation bodies; and borrowing of admission requirements, adoption of university programs of study, credit hours, majors, approval of curriculum and syllabi, faculty, and campus architecture; partnership and affiliation modalities policies and procedures from the university with which they are affiliated (Coffman, 2003; Ghabra and Arnold, 2007). It seems bemusing that, despite considerable negative public opinion towards US foreign policy in the region, Arab parents and students are still keen on pursuing an American-style university education (Ghabra and Arnold, 2007).

316

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

This is perhaps explained by the region’s lack of a strong academic and intellectual tradition outside of Islamic studies and, more importantly, by a strong conviction in the region that this form of education will open doors to a successful, productive, and prosperous future (Coffman, 2003; Ghabra and Arnold, 2007). The varying degrees to which universities in the Arab world are responding to the new developments are manifested through the different strategies they are employing to promote IHE. In some countries, the major manifestation of the change has been the establishment of extensive partnerships with foreign universities through the encouragement and/or direct involvement of governments. The invitation of leading universities and the setting up of foundations and educational free zones dedicated to this purpose are typical examples that show how governments in the region are behind the new developments and reforms in the region. In fact, what enabled high-quality international brands to enter the market in the region was clear governmental policies that created a positive, encouraging climate for investment (David, Taleb, Scatolini, AlQallafc, Al-Shammari, and George, 2017). For instance, the Education City in Qatar is the flagship project of Qatar Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by the Emir of the State of Qatar and chaired by his wife, which was founded in 1995 with the aim of developing a culture of scientific research and community development to help build a sustainable, knowledge-based society (Driouchi and Achehboune, 2014). The start-up costs of institutions operating in the city are paid for by the Foundation, without which many universities would have found it difficult to operate. The UAE is also known for making considerable efforts to build regional and international standing through the creation of proper public facilities, attracting qualified faculty members, offering outstanding programs and many other actions that contributed to the growth of the country as a regional higher education hub (Driouchi and Achehboune, 2014). International universities have been lured to “free zones” such as Dubai Knowledge Village and Academic City of the United Arab Emirates by a number of special privileges they received, which included full foreign ownership, tax-free operations, and little or no restriction on the repatriation of profits (Lewin, 2008). In addition to establishing the Emirates Foundation, which provided funding and support to educational institutions of distinction, the Dubai Knowledge Village initiative offered an attractive proposition for international universities by allowing for 100 percent foreign ownership within a tax-free environment. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain have also been involved in similar initiatives. In addition to allowing the proliferation of private universities, Bahrain is planning to build a large higher education city (Toumi, 2008). However, the approach could be different from one country to another. For instance, while campuses operating in Qatar’s Education City are subsidized by Qatar Foundation, foreign institutions that come to Dubai’s Knowledge Village must operate on a fully private basis without subsidies (Gonzalez, Karoly, Constant, Salem, and Goldman, 2008). Many institutions in the region are also experiencing the new wave of transnational higher education (TNHE) with distinctive characteristics of their own. UAE and Qatar are mainly at the forefront of the “branch campus model” that subscribes to “institution mobility” (Vardhan, 2015; Madichie, 2015; Badri, 2019a). In fact, the UAE hosts over forty international branch campuses, which represents almost a quarter of all international branch campuses worldwide (Becker, 2009). Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Kuwait appear to favor the partnership model, in which local universities develop programs through affiliation with foreign institutions. Bahrain is especially popular for the “twinning model,” which involves students studying for a part of the program in the host country

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GCC REGION

317

and another in the home country (Vardhan, 2015; Driouchi and Achehboune, 2014; Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). The Sultanate of Oman, on the other hand, owns a thriving private higher education sector in the absence of international branch campuses (Gonzalez et al., 2008; Vaidya, 2010). In Saudi Arabia, foreign universities are not allowed to operate independently, and partnerships are highly regulated and monitored (Glain, 2009). In Kuwait, while branch campuses must adhere to the policies and standards set by the home campus to safeguard and maintain accreditation, local institutions with an international connection are subject to the laws and decrees set by local regulatory bodies. The major source countries for TNHE are the United States (which dominates branch campuses), the United Kingdom, and Australia. The list includes other countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, France, Singapore, and India. Russia, Iran, and Pakistan also have foreign campuses in the region. Most of the foreign institutions are drawn to the region by economic reasons and the search for a new market (Vardhan, 2015). Students are drawn to these institutions owing not only to their geographical proximity but also the opportunities their training opens to a successful, productive, and prosperous future through the prestige, quality, international standards, opportunities for employment, and learning of English (Ghabra and Arnold, 2007; Smail and Silvera, 2018). Notwithstanding these new developments, and the benefits that learners perceive to be getting from foreign institutions, there are criticisms leveled against the system, which is condemned for attempting to build international reputation despite the lack of improvement as regards the quality of education in public education and the sustainability of the project itself (Buckner, 2011; Madichie, 2015).

STUDENT MOBILITY The mobility dimension in the MENA region is manifested through both inbound and outbound student mobility (see Table 20.1). As may be seen in Table 20.1, Saudi Arabia is one of the top countries for outbound student mobility. United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar are the next top international education hubs. According to UUKI (n.d.), students from the GCC region tend to study in English-speaking destination countries. The United States holds the largest market share of internationally mobile students from Saudi Arabia (62 percent) and Kuwait (35 percent). Historical ties with host countries, geographical positions, and language appear to influence where and how the link generating academic mobility is usually forged (David et al., 2017). There is also a significant movement of students within the region. According to David et al. (2017), within GCC UAE seems to be the most popular destination for

TABLE 20.1 Outbound and inbound mobility in the GCC region Country Bahrain Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Source: UIS, UNESCO 2017.

Mobile students abroad

Mobile students hosted

5,831 22,891 14,338 6,523 84,310 11,240

6,040 NA 3,263 11,515 73,977 64,447

318

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

study abroad, with Omani students studying in the UAE taking the lead, followed by Saudi Arabians and Kuwaitis. While Saudi students seem to be highly mobile within GCC compared with other member countries, they prefer UAE as their first preferred choice, followed by Kuwait and Bahrain. UAE also hosts large numbers of students from Iraq, Jordan, Oman, and Egypt (UUKI: n.d.). There have also been several scholarship schemes that support the movement of students within the region and abroad. However, this trend appears to be gradually waning. According to UUKI (n.d.), the number of GCC entrants benefiting from a government scholarship or similar support decreased by 40 percent between 2010 and 2011, and 2011 and 2012.

PRIVATIZATION In recent years, the Gulf countries have witnessed the proliferation of private colleges and universities (Coffman, 2003; Tolmacheva, 2008; Dakhli and El Zohairy, 2013). The privatization of higher education is taking place at a tremendous pace due to a variety of reasons that include demographic, cultural, political, and economic factors. Local rulers and wealthy nationals in the region are also involved in opening private institutions that are based on foreign, particularly American, models (Barnawi, 2017; Barnawi and Al Hawsawi, 2017; Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). Coffman (2003) argues that in the GCC region privatization is not only used as a solution to the growing demand for higher education but also as a means of ensuring the relevance and quality of instruction that have been missing from public universities in the region.

ENGLISH AS A MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION The importance of English in the Arabian gulf has been dictated by a variety of reasons that include its importance as a mediator of science and technology, as a language of communication with the rest of the world and among the significant foreign community that resides in the region, and as a platform for modernizing Gulf countries (Mahboob and Elyas, 2017). The aim behind this major shift has been not only to help graduates from the region to develop advanced communication skills in English, but also to accommodate the evolving socio-economic needs of citizens, to ensure international participation in the global economy, to compete favorably in an increasingly globalized labor market, and to provide a political and economic connection to the rest of the world (Corbyn, 2009; Wilkins, 2011; Barnawi, 2012). A variety of initiatives have been taken to promote the study of English at lower and tertiary levels. A key component of this change has been the decision by governments to switch from Arabic to English as a medium of instruction and to import English products and services to their educational systems (Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). This responsibility has been entrusted not only to national governments but also to international consultancy groups, and Western educated expatriate faculty and university leaders who form the majority of academics (80 to 95 percent) in the non-public universities (Hamdan, 2013; Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). However, the promotion of English as a medium has been happening against the presence of competing cultural and linguistic heritages that pose resistance to foreign languages and culture. Despite the new developments in promoting English as providing social, linguistic, political, cultural, intellectual, and economic advantages, its fast-growing international role in higher education is being questioned as a product and a promoter of neoliberalism (Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GCC REGION

319

INTERNATIONALIZATION THROUGH RESEARCH Compared with those in other regions, higher education institutions in the GCC are less involved in knowledge creation, international knowledge networks, and innovation as a result of which research achievements within the region are quite meagre. Badry (2019a: 5) notes that countries in GCC nations that have heavily invested in education including the provision of significant financial incentives to branch campuses, international partnerships and consultancy services, allocate only about 1 percent of their GDP to R & D. In addition, social constraints on access to data, particularly in the social sciences, hinder the process of conducting research in some parts of the region. According to Badry (2019a: 6), “major international databases, such as Elsevier’s Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, etc., do not index Arabic medium journals resulting in an underrepresentation of research in Arabic on the international scene.” This does not, however, mean that there have been no attempts to improve the existing situation. Governments in United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, for example, had launched research initiatives, including scientific research commissions, centers of excellence, science councils, business and technology parks, and incubators but the initiatives lack consolidation at the regional level to stimulate cooperative research that addresses common pressing problems in the region (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). Notwithstanding the budget limitations, the meagre research output of the region has been attributed to collaboration forged with international co-authors, which is expected to grow (UUKI: n.d.). With the exception of Kuwait, more than half of the GCC countries’ total research output is produced through international collaborations (UUKI: n.d.). The percentage of research carried out with an international partner is 59.8 percent in the UAE, 68.4 percent for Saudi Arabia, and 77.88 percent in Qatar. The United States is regarded as the GCC’s most important overseas research partner in this regard (UUKi: n.d.). Another emerging partner of the region is China. It is now Qatar’s third largest research partner, and the fifth largest research partner for Saudi Arabia; the field weighted citation impact (a measure of research quality) of Chinese research collaborations with Qatar and Saudi Arabia is higher than research produced in collaboration with the United States and the UK (UUKi: n.d.). India is currently the most important research partner for Oman and the third most important for Saudi Arabia. However, there are efforts towards changing the status quo both in terms of policy priority and practical tasks. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology has adopted a model that encourages world-class universities to help design the curriculum of its programs and has created a “Global Research Partnership” allowing its faculty and students access to top researchers and research facilities from four world-class research universities (Ruby et al., 2011). There are also increasing commitments from countries such as Saudi Arabia and UAE to change their weak positions in knowledge generation.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION As noted earlier, government expenditure on education in GCC countries has been comparable, on average, to many developed countries when taken as a percentage of GDP. However, this spending has not yielded the expected returns on investment from either quantitative or qualitative measures (Maroun et al., 2008). Despite the increasing interest the emergent institutions in the region have drawn, there is a variety of challenges

320

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

they are facing. According to Ghabra and Arnold (2007), these institutions experience sudden changes in administration, problems in faculty morale, and shifts in mission, and have difficulty attracting high-quality and stable faculty and students. These universities are also said to be characterized by high Faculty Workload and Low Morale. What’s more, the universities have limited relations with the community, which impinges on students’ exposure to the real world. The level of academic freedom and institutional autonomy is also affected by the centralized role of the government that exercises full control of what goes on at the institutions. This can range from banning classroom and library materials and internet sites to limiting student interaction and activities (Ghabra and Arnold, 2007). International recruitment is also a challenging task due to the instability of the region and some of the traditions and practices that go against Western culture and tradition. The universities are also accused of encouraging inequity due to their high tuition fees and limited scholarship opportunities. All these can affect the quality of education provided, the presence of established faculty, and the tolerance and diversity among students. Despite the various efforts made within higher education in the region, the issue of quality assurance continues to be a high priority. It is particularly so in the light of the globalization of higher education, increasing student enrollment, and the mushrooming of private institutions, which are new developments in the region and call for systems and mechanisms for quality assurance. It is believed that effective, transparent QA mechanisms, including certification and accreditation procedures for cross-border education, will maximize the benefits for students, programs, and/or institutions and national systems as a whole (Ruby, 2010).

CHALLENGES AND AREAS OF CONCERN The foregoing points are an indication that the process of IHE has benefited the region in terms of creating wider access, enhancing gender equity, creating a diversified educational landscape and institutions, establishing QA mechanisms, and creating access to global knowledge through English. The acquisition of quality education without leaving the region and the adoption of new instruction methods that promote critical thinking have been regarded as some of the most common gains made through the process of internationalization of higher education in the region (Dakhli and El Zohairy, 2013). Other than what has been achieved at the level of individual countries, results include raising the profile of some universities to among the top 500 international institutions in the world (Badri, 2019b). However, overall changes in the region have also been constrained by a range of challenges related to lack of educational quality, conflict between modernity and tradition, lack of academic autonomy and freedom, effects of privatization and wholesale emulation of the American model, failure to meet the demands of the labor market, and the impacts of using English as an international language.

THE CHALLENGES OF PRIVATIZATION, RESEARCH PRODUCTION, AND THE LABOR MARKET Another challenge confronted by the region is related to privatization. Private higher education institutions in the region, unlike many of those in North America and Europe, are for-profit. Unlike public universities, these private universities are typically subject to

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GCC REGION

321

fewer limitations. These types of institutions also have a difficult time recruiting highly qualified faculty in light of the factors discussed earlier, with the added challenge from local state-run flagship universities and international branch campuses (IBCs) that have an advantage in attracting the most qualified professors (Epstein, 2009; Tolmacheva, 2008). Bahrain is a case in which a number of its private institutions allegedly engaged in administrative malpractices and flouted the rules by hiring unqualified staff, lightening course loads, and easing registration procedures, attendance, and examinations (Toumi, 2008). To no one’s surprise, universities in Bahrain became especially popular and a destination of choice for those in the region who were not accepted or who had failed at their home institutions. Another challenge is the limitation in knowledge production across the region. The region continues to be a consumer rather than a producer of knowledge, partly due to lack of appropriate lack of structure and funding for research. Badry (2019a: 5) notes that internationalization has not enabled the region to significantly improve quality and build an “adequate scientific and technological infrastructure to absorb, apply and create knowledge (UNESCO, 2018, p. 8)” It has been noted that less than 0.25 percent of Saudi Arabia’s GDP, for example, is spent on research, and universities do not have strong links with the private sector (Madichie, 2015). As noted by Dakhli and El Zohairy (2013), the GCC economies rely heavily on expatriate labor. The lack of well-qualified local graduates to staff private sector firms, especially in banking, management, and other related business areas, creates a heavy demand for non-nationals, or expatriates, who dominate the workforce of all GCC countries, accounting for 88 percent and 91 percent of workers in Qatar and the UAE, respectively (Gonzalez et al., 2008). The percentage of citizens employed in the private sector is said to be insignificant in countries such as Qatar and the UAE (less than 1 and 5 percent respectively) in addition to the dependence of the GCC economies on foreign laborers and expatriate professionals. Aside from complaints related to lack of critical, analytical, technical, innovative, and communication skills of graduates, employability has gone down (Hayes, 2018; Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). As noted by Coffman (2003), indigenization of the workforce has become a priority in every GCC country; and the fact that local graduates of public universities lack the required skills has become clear. However, the incompatibility of higher education with market needs is contributing to high youth unemployment rates, which pose a major challenge for the Gulf countries, where a saturated and overly generous public sector, which tends to employ mostly nationals, has also aggravated the unemployment and underemployment problems (Alissa, 2007; de Boer and Turner, 2007; Gonzalez et al., 2008; Kazem, 2008; Othman, 2008).

QUALITY OF EDUCATION Ensuring the quality of state-owned or private local institutions, and that of international institutions operating in the GCC region, has been a major challenge for policymakers and governments (Vardhan, 2015). Studies indicate that the region’s educational achievements have fallen short of expectations and addressing the aspirations of younger generations (Dakhli and El Zohairy, 2013). Coffman (2003) asserts that most Gulf education officials openly admit that their universities have been characterized by mediocre faculty, outdated teaching methods, and poor materials and facilities. The region’s secondary and university graduates have always lagged far behind graduates in East Asia and other developing nations (Coffman, 2003).

322

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

According to Dakhli and El Zohairy (2013), one of the major factors hindering the advancement of the educational systems in the GCC is the traditional and outdated pedagogical methods that continue to be adopted. Rote learning as a major methodology of teaching in the region—with its restrictions on topics that do not fit into social and cultural standards—is not in tune with the innovative thinking promoted in Western education (Madichie, 2015). Whereas state-owned Arab universities (using Arabic language instruction) are based on a system of lectures and examinations where students learn to memorize facts, American-style higher education uses a method and model of learning based on thinking critically and articulating opinions, honing oral and written communication skills, emphasizing lifelong learning, discussion, classroom interaction, teamwork, and projects and a variety of tools and resources with the purpose of transforming individuals into more fully developed, thinking, and engaged citizens (Smail and Silvera, 2018). The major challenge in assuring the quality of the education system is the focus on: memorization rather than the development of students’ critical thinking and creativity skills; inputs over outputs (i.e., student performance); quantity rather than quality; employment of lower caliber teachers and poorly trained staff; and assessments based on factual information rather than on how to apply acquired knowledge to solve problems (Dakhli and El Zohairy, 2013). Although the new American-style institutions of higher education are able to create pockets of skills and critical thinking for their students, they face challenges in complying with local cultures, regulations, laws, and the style of education they have been accustomed to (Ghabra and Arnold, 2007). Breaking through the traditional practices as regards students who tend to be accustomed to learning through lectures and memorization and an authoritarian style of education cannot be an easy task (Ghabra and Arnold, 2007). In a way, bottlenecks of this kind and the limited capacity of state universities to provide quality education, have encouraged policymakers to undertake major reforms based on privatization and transnational higher education.

USING ENGLISH AS A MEDIUM AND CONFLICT BETWEEN MODERNITY AND TRADITION Another major challenge is related to the use of a foreign language as a medium of instruction. The importance of English in the Arabian gulf has been dictated by a variety of reasons that include its service as a mediator of science and technology, as a language of communication with the rest of the world and among the significant foreign community that resides in the region, and as a platform from which modernizing Gulf countries (Mahboob and Elyas, 2017). Arab Gulf countries, government, and private schools teach the language from first grade. Many private schools in the region introduce English from kindergarten (Mahboob and Elyas, 2017). Though Gulf governments have invested heavily in teaching English to their school children, the result has not been always positive. Badri (2019b) notes that the promotion of English has led to social challenges and political tensions with opposition from both progressive and conservative groups debating on its promotion against Arabic. However, despite such oppositions the push for English shows no sign of abating. Coffman (2003) argues that the region does not constitute a major obstacle to the adoption of Western education and the use of English as a medium of instruction as in the case of other members of the Arab world where bitter confrontations are experienced in the use of colonial languages over Arabic.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GCC REGION

323

There is a variety of socio-cultural factors that affect the success of the internationalization process in the GCC region. Indeed, integrating the Western approach into local culture and traditions is a serious challenge many institutions are troubled with. According to Madichie (2015), the wide variations in culture and way of life between the GCC countries and the model of education they are fast adopting from the West is one of the major challenges the education sector in the region is grappling with. For instance, the cultural and religious strictures to be respected in each country tend to center around the logistics of segregation of the sexes and the inclusion of mandatory culture and religion courses (Coffman, 2003). The attraction of top scholars to the region has been a real challenge due to factors such as the conservative traditions and practices that continue to be maintained; the lack of academic freedom that discourages them from sojourning in the Gulf universities, which has had its own negative impacts in enhancing the quality of education provided (Madichie 2015). There are many instances in which faculty members have been made to face the consequences of government-orchestrated reprisals in the form of arrest, physical assault, or dismissal. There are also worrying political developments due to the confrontation between regional powers like the United States and Iran and developments like the Arab spring that governments want to keep at bay.

CONCLUSION Internationalization of higher education has been embraced in the GCC region as a consequence of a host of factors that are transforming the higher education landscape in many fundamental ways (Dakhli and El Zohairy, 2013). The region has benefited in terms of improved access, new and multiple delivery modes, access to worldwide knowledge and economic opportunities, educational choice, and equity. The growing number of cross border alliances is especially having a considerable impact on the educational landscape in the GCC region (Coffman, 2003). Many locals no longer see the need to travel to the West to pursue a bachelor’s or graduate degree of international standing. Women have especially benefited as they now have the opportunity to further their education with minimal travel and cultural barriers. These changes hold the potential to radically alter the role of education in developing local human capital, in addressing the current disconnect between education and the labor market, the emergence of various alternatives to the state-dominated bureaucratic model, and the increasing participation of women in the region (Dakhli and El Zohairy, 2013). Nevertheless, despite its promotion through a variety of legislations and budget allocations, IHE in the GCC is fraught with a variety of challenges, conflicts, and tensions that emanate from operating in a region that has its own long history and rich legacy of religion, culture, and written language. Quite often, IHE is viewed as a formidable force that functions against local heritage and traditions. Hence, given the hitherto achievements, much remains to be done in terms of properly addressing both the benefits and pitfalls of internationalization in the region.

REFERENCES Al-Agtash, S. and Labib Khadra, L. (2019). Internationalization context of Arabia higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(2): 68–81. Al Aleeli, S. (2019). Internationalization of higher education in the United Arab Emirates: Opportunities and fears. In Kenon, V.H., and Palsole, S.V. (eds), The Wiley Handbook of Global Workplace Learning. New York: Wiley

324

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Al Khaldi, S. (2017). Education Policies in the GCC States. UAE : Gulf Research Center. Alissa, S. (2007). Strengthening the Private Sector is a Prerequisite for Dealing with Unemployment in the Arab World, Dar Al-Hayat, March 7. Retrieved from the Carnegie Endowment website: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index. cfm?fa=viewandid=19056 (accessed November 6, 2012). Alpen Capital (2018). GCC Education Industry Report. November 13. Retrieved from: http:// www.alpencapital.com/downloads/reports/2018/GCC-Education-Industry-ReportNovember-2018.pdf Badry, F. (2019a). Internationalization of higher education in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Impact on the national language. Background paper prepared for the Arab States 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report. Badry, F. (2019b). Expanding the UAE’s higher education horizon: Path towards a sustainable future. In Gallagher, K. (ed.), Education in the United Arab Emirates: Innovation and Transformation. Singapore: Springer, pp. 57–73. Badry, F., and Willoughby, J. (2016). Higher education revolutions in the Gulf: Globalization and institutional viability. Routledge Advances in Middle East and Islamic Studies. New York, NY: Routledge. Bahgat, G. (1999). Education in the Gulf monarchies: Retrospect and prospect. International Review of Education, 45(2): 127–136. Barnawi, O.Z. (2012). CEFR, One Size, Fits ALL? Paper presented at 18 Annual TESOL Arabia Conference, Dubai, UAE , 8–10 March. Barnawi, O.Z. (2017). Neoliberalism and English Language Education Policies in the Arabian Gulf. Routledge Research in Language Education. London and New York: Routledge. Barnawi, O.Z., and Al-Hawsawi, S. (2017). English language education policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current trends, issues and challenges. In Kirkpatrick, R. (ed.), English Language Education Policy in the Middle East and North Africa. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing, pp. 199–222. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46778-8_12 Becker, R.F.J. (2009). International Branch Campuses: Markets and Strategies. London: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE). Buckner, E. (2011). The role of higher education in the Arab state and society: Historical legacies and recent reform patterns. Comparative and International Higher Education, 3(1): 21–26. Coffman, J. (2003). Higher education in the Gulf: Privatization and Americanization. International Higher Education. The Boston College Centre for International Higher Education, 33: 17–19. Corbyn, Z. (2009). Saudi Arabia begins putting minds to challenges of future. Times Higher Education, September 24. Available online: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/408293. article (accessed October 10, 2013). Dakhli, M., and El Zohairy, D. (2013). Emerging trends in higher education in the GCC: A critical assessment. In Alon I., Jones V., and McIntyre J.R. (eds), Innovation in Business Education in Emerging Markets. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137292 De Boer, K., and Turner, J.M. (2007). Beyond oil: Reappraising the Gulf States. The McKinsey Quarterly. http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Economic_Studies/ Country_Reports/ Beyond_oil_Reappraising_the_Gulf_States_1902 (accessed November 6, 2012). Driouchi, A., and Achehboune, A. (2014). Mobility of Students from Arab Countries and Internationalization of Higher Education with Application to Medical Studies. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/58858/

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GCC REGION

325

El-Ghali, H. (2010). Higher education and youth unemployment in Lebanon. Comparative and International Higher Education, 2(1): 12–13. Epstein, D. (2009). Gulf Withdrawal. Inside Higher ED , February 27. Retrieved from http:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/27/mason, accessed on November 6, 2012. Ghabra, S., and Arnold, M. (2007). Studying the American Way: An Assessment of AmericanStyle Higher Education in Arab Countries. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (Policy Focus No. 71). Retrieved from: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/ view/studying-the-american-way-an-assessment-of-american-style-higher-education(accessed November 6, 2012). Glain, S. (2009). Desert Advance. ASEE Prism, January. http://www.prism-magazine.org/jan09/ feature_03.cfm (accessed November 6, 2012). Gonzalez, G., Karoly, L., Constant, L., Salem, H., and Goldman, C.A. (2008). Facing Human Capital Challenges of the 21st Century: Education and Labour Market Initiatives in Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. RAND Qatar Policy Institute. www. rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG786/ (accessed November 6, 2012). Hamdan, A. (2013). An exploration into “private” higher education in Saudi Arabia: Improving quality and accessibility? The ACPET Journal for Private Higher Education, 2(2): 33–44. Hayes, A. (2018). Deconstructing the “magnetic” properties of neoliberal politics of education in Bahrain. Globalisation, Societies and Education. http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/1590/1/ pre-print percent20revision.pdf Kazem, A. (2008). Educational outputs and the needs of Gulf labor markets: The missing link. Araa’Magazine, October, 49. Le Ha, P., and Barnawi, O.Z. (2015). Where English, neoliberalism, desire and internationalization are alive and kicking: Higher education in Saudi Arabia today. Language and Education, doi: 10.1080/09500782.2015.1059436 Lewin, T. (2008). U.S. universities rush to set up outposts abroad. The New York Times, February 10. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/ education/10global.html Madichie, N. (2015). An overview of higher education in the Arabian Gulf. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 7(4): 326–335. Mahboob, A., and Ilyas, T. (2017). Introduction: Challenges to education in the GCC during the 21st century. In Mahboob, A., and Ilyas, T. (eds), Challenges to Education in the GCC during the 21st Century. Cambridge: Gulf Research Centre, pp. 13–18. Maroun, N., Samman, H., Moujaes, C, and Abouchakra, R., and Booz Allen Hamilton Ideation Centre (2008). How to succeed at education reform: The case for Saudi Arabia and the broader GCC region. Retrieved from http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/How_to_ Succeed_at_Education_Reform.pdf (accessed November 6, 2012). Miller -Idriss, C. and Hanauer, E. (2011). Transnational higher education: Offshore campuses in the Middle East. Comparative Education, 47(2): 181–207, doi: 10.1080/03050068.2011.553935 Othman, A. (2008). An analytical and critical look at educational outputs and the needs of Gulf labour markets. Araa’ Magazine, October, 49 (original in Arabic). Robison, Gordon. (2005). USC Centre on Public Diplomacy—Middle East Media Project, Education: An American growth industry in the Arab World, July, http://uscpublicdiplomacy. org/pdfs/Robison_-_Education_An_American_Jul26.pdf (accessed November 6, 2012). Ruby, A. (2010). Thinking about a branch campus? Think twice. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 21. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/OceUFF (accessed October, 2013).

326

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Ruby, A., Jaramillo, A., Henard, F., & Zaafrane, H. (2011). Internationalization of Higher Education in MENA: Policy Issues Associated with Skills Formation and Mobility. World Bank Group Open Knowledge Repository, Retrieved from: https://repository.upenn.edu/ gse_pubs/488 Smail, L., and Silvera, G. (2018). American universities in the Middle East: A student’s perspective. Cogent Education, 5(1), article 1447228. Tolmacheva, M. (2008). Bringing the American College Model to the Arabian Gulf: New Challenges for Intercultural Education. Proceedings of the 4th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education, vol. 6. Higher education for intercultural dialogue and multiculturalism. Barcelona: GUNI . Available at http://www.gunirmies.net Toumi, H. (2008). Council Warns Bahrain Universities. Gulf News, October 29. http:// gulfnews.com/news/gulf/bahrain/council-warns-bahrain-universities-1.139189 (accessed November 6, 2012). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2017). The World population prospects: The 2017 revision. UNDESA. Universities UK International (UUKI) (n.d.). UK higher education engagement with the cooperation council for the Arab States of the Gulf. London: UUKI . Vaidya, S. K. (2010). Leading bank offers higher education savings plan. Gulf News, October 26. http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/oman/leading-bank-offers-higher-education-savingsplan-1.701640, accessed on November 6, 2012 Vardhan, J. (2015). Internationalization and the changing paradigm of higher education in the GCC countries. SAGE Open, 5(2) https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244015580377 Wilkins, S. (2011). Who benefits from foreign universities in the Arab Gulf States? Australian Universities’ Review, 53(1): 73–83. World Bank (2019). Expectations and Aspirations: A New Framework for Education in the Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC : World Bank.

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Higher Education in Jordan At the Confluence of Nationalization and Internationalization AREF AL ATTARI

INTRODUCTION Knowledge is, by its very nature, international. The peripatetic scholars used to sojourn at the Academy of Athens in centuries BC, the high Islamic madrasah of the Golden Islamic ages, and the cosmopolitan medieval universities of Europe, driven first and foremost by the passion for knowledge and intellectual curiosity (Kerr, 1990). The Rihla (tour) in pursuit of Knowledge is well known in the Islamic as well as the Western legacies (De Wit and Hunter, 2015a; Abyad, 2012). In the nineteenth century many American students went to Germany and looked at German universities as models upon which to build American universities (Turner and Bernard, 1993). It was not until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that higher education was invoked by the neophyte “nation-states” to advance national agendas, contribute to the nation building, and serve the national interests (De Wit and Merkx, 2012). Essentially though, internationalization of higher education went unabated. Students from all over the world including Arab countries flocked to European seats of knowledge in the nineteenth century, while higher education institutions (HEIs) were built on the Western model in the Arab world and elsewhere (Abyad, 2012). The twentieth century, particularly the post-Second World War years, ushered in a reinternationalization (partial re-convergence, in Kerr’s words) era that accelerated from the 1990s onwards due to the unprecedented socio-political, economic conditions and technological advances that led HEIs particularly in the West to widen up to accommodate millions of students from inside as well as outside their cultural vicinity and geographical orbit; to include international themes in their mission statements, and strategic plans, and to engage in the processes of globalization, international networks, and internationalized curriculum (Kerr, 1994; Altbach, 2005; Teichler, 2017). However, it is intriguing to monitor how the new wave of “popular” right and xenophobia characterized by antiglobal, inward-looking political climate, isolationism, and mono-culturalism in different parts of the world would impact upon the internationalization process (Knight and De Wit, 2018). 327

328

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION: THE “WHAT,” “WHY,” AND “HOW” De Wit and Hunter (2015b: 2) defined internationalization of higher education as “the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society.” This definition is an elaborated update of Knight’s widely used definition of internationalization of higher education (IoHE) as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight, 2004). Taken together, both the definitions give the impression that internationalization is a dynamic, ongoing, long-term, comprehensive, committed, purposeful, and planned process; that it is not only market- but qualitydriven, and that it is shaped and reshaped by the context in which it occurs. Scholars identify overlapping rationales for the internationalization of higher education. The existence of many rationales points to the many stakeholders in the internationalization of higher education: academics, policymakers, economic entities, and international organizations to cite but few. Knight and De Wit (1995) mentioned four rationales for internationalization of higher education: academic, social/cultural, political, and economic rationales. Gunsyma (2014) found a shift in rationales for the internationalization of higher education in Russia after the dismantling of the Ex-Soviet Union from the political to the economic besides the academic rationale, which reflects a general consensus that internationalization improves academic quality, international profile, and status. Universities have their own reasons to become more international. In addition to promoting higher education’s fundamental academic mission, universities are competing for recognition, accreditation, reputation, talent, resources, revenue, and national and international ranking (Green, 2012). Traditionally, internationalization of higher education was seen through mobility of students and staff, and later through institutional mobility. However, it was realized that not all students and staff go abroad or join a foreign institution. Buckner (2011) found that only a tiny percentage of students are enrolled at International Branch Campuses (IBCs) in the Gulf Arab states. Hence, the question is raised: What to do with the vast majority of students who are not exposed to intercultural learning and an international experience? (Teekens, 2013). Hence, new terms, namely “Internationalization at Home” (IaH), “Internationalization of the Curriculum” (IoC), “Campus Internationalization,” and “Comprehensive Internationalization” emerged to introduce a holistic approach to internationalization that is not restricted to physical mobility. Internationalization at Home aims to develop international and intercultural competences in all students (Leask, 2012). IaH could be achieved through engagement with the “domestic learning environments,” comparative international studies, inviting guest lecturers and speakers from local cultural groups or international entities, or from international partner universities, conducting international case studies, virtual mobility, online collaboration, virtual projects, courses on intercultural communication, language learning, and cooperation with international organizations in the home country. The internationalization of the Curriculum (IoC) is defined by Leask (2015) as “the incorporation of international, intercultural and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods and support services of a program of study.” This was an update of her earlier definition

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

329

(Leask, 2009) that did not include the informal curriculum, which is defined as the: “Various support services and additional activities and options organized by the university, that are not assessed and do not form part of the formal curriculum, although they may support learning within it.” Campus Internationalization focuses on creating a learning environment that encompasses both the formal and the informal curriculum, but seems mostly aimed at the latter, i.e., the non-assessed elements. Campus Internationalization encourages mobile students to share their study abroad when they return to the home campus. On the other hand, it looks at international students as human capital that may be drawn upon to internationalize the institution. It exerts efforts to engage international students with the local community. International students are seen as a source of cultural capital and diversity, enriching the learning experience both for home students and for one another, expanding staff horizons, building a more powerful learning community, and thus deepening the higher education (HE) experience as a whole (Brown and Jones, 2007; Lee and Rice, 2007). All the types of internationalization discussed above aim at learners’ acquisition of global perspectives (Lunn, 2008), global competencies (Hunter, White, and Godbey, 2006), global consciousness (Gacel-Ávila, 2018), global citizenship (Shiel and Takeda, 2008; Hunter et al., 2006) with the end result being a “global ready graduate” who has “an open mind while actively seeking to understand cultural norms and expectations of others,” “a value system that is positive towards diversity,” and “respect for humanity’s differences and cultural wealth,” as well as a sense of responsibility for his/her actions and preparedness to act to make the world more equitable and sustainable (Hunter et al., 2006). Internationalization of Research, including international co-authorship and other international research benchmarks, also ranks high on the agenda of universities. Research requires more international collaboration than in the past, and is increasingly competitive in nature. National and institutional needs to acquire academic talent are urgent and processes around issues such as the awarding of patents and knowledge transfer require more support than ever. Growth in international research funding, patents, publications, and citations requires the development of internationalized, or globalized research teams (Woldegiyorgis, Proctor, and De Wit, 2018). The foregoing gives the impression that internationalization of higher education has gradually become to be viewed as “for all,” all-embracing, comprehensive, purposeful, planned, and strategic where the local is blended with the inter-cultural and global dimensions to connect with the ethos and outcomes of higher education. “Comprehensive Internationalization” should be embraced by the institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. The comprehensive internationalization should be embedded in the rationale and strategy of a university; its vision and values; all key university policies and strategies. It should be incorporated in the formal curriculum, in the campus culture and informal curriculum. A university with comprehensive international orientation: celebrates the events and activities that support internationalization on campus; shall have a vibrant, diverse international and multicultural student community that actively participates in campus life and enriches classroom and campus culture; shall have staff development programs to train staff to engage aspects of the international dimension of university life; should have broad and deep international partnerships and should provide global opportunities for student and staff through research, exchange of programs, and visiting academic and support staff.

330

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

And, it should assess the internationalization strategy through monitoring, reflection, and evaluation processes which inform reviews of policy and practice.

THIS STUDY I picked up from the above conceptualization of comprehensive internationalization to analyze the websites of the Jordanian Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) and Jordanian universities searching for indicators of the internationalization of higher education such as international orientation, academic mobility; language; IaH, IoC, CI (Campus Internationalization); internationalization of research and international partnerships. I qualitatively analyzed some related documents of the MoHE, which is the governing body of the higher education in Jordan. Then I analyzed the websites of almost all universities. “Content analysis” of websites is a legitimate tool to access information (Hwang, McMillan, and Lee, 2003). However, it is also limited by the changing nature of information therein, the complexity of the websites, the interconnectedness of individual pages, and the presence of information or units of analysis in a number of pages (Vardhan, 2015). I first made a “topographic” visit of the websites of all thirty-two universities that are listed on the website of the MoHE. I found that some websites were void of useful information on internationalization per se. I excluded the community colleges and university colleges for several reasons, most important of which is that they do not operate postgraduate programs and this adversely affects research. The medium of instruction at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) College is Arabic, which may restrict the dissemination of research in international venues. I visited the remaining websites searching for explicit or implicit existence of the indicators of internationalization of higher education. The various words, phrases, and catchwords such as “international,” “global,” “international partnerships,” “international collaboration,” “external relations,” “diversity,” “mobility,” and “multicultural” were used in the searching process. I hope that this study will pave the way for more empirical research with more rigorous methodology.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN: AN OVERVIEW The genesis of higher education in Jordan could be traced to the establishment of the two-year post-secondary school “Teachers’ Houses” in the 1950s, which came to be known later as the “Teachers’ Institutes” then as the “Community Colleges.” The Community Colleges continue as an integral part of the higher education sector in Jordan and are under the jurisdiction of the MoHE. According to the statistics of the MoHE there were forty-two community colleges both private and public in 2016/2017, accommodating 18,194 students. Under specific conditions, graduates of community colleges can join universities as per a procedure known as “Bridging.” The first public university was established in 1962 under the name “The University of Jordan” while the first private university “Amman Ahliyya University” had to wait till 1989. There are now thirty-two universities both public and private. Private universities outnumber public universities as displayed in Table 21.1. Universities and community colleges are accessible to holders of the General Secondary School Certificate, which is awarded at the end of the twelve year school education (ten years basic + two years secondary). Except for the fine arts and sports specialties, the acceptance in higher education depends mainly on the general average of marks scored at the GSSC.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

331

TABLE 21.1 Universities in Jordan 2019 Public

Private

Regional

1

The University of Jordan (has a branch Campus in Aqaba)

Amman Arab University

The World Islamic Science and Education University

2

Jordan University for Science and Technology (JUST)

Middle East University

Arab Open University

3

Yarmouk University

Jadara University

4

Mua’tah University

Amman Private University

5

Al Hashimiyya University

Applied Science University

6

Al Al Bait University

Philadelphia University

7

AL Hussain Technical University

Al Isra’ University

8

Al Tafila Technical University

Al Zaitouna University

9

Jordan German University

University of Petra

10

Al Balqa Applied University

Jeresh University

11

Prince Hussain Civil Protection Academy

Prince Sumayya University for Technology

12

Ajloun National University

13

Irbid National University

14

Zerqa Private Universities

15

Jordan Academy of Music

16

Jordan Applied University College of Hospitality and Tourism Education (JAU)

17

Faculty of Educational Sciences and Arts-UNRWA

18

Red Sea Institute of Cinematic Arts

19

The American University in Maadaba

Source: Jordan MoHE website as of 2019.

THE STRUCTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN Higher education in Jordan, though enjoying a relatively high level of institutional independence is impacted upon by bodies at the national level: The Cabinet, The Parliament Education Committee and the immediate governing body, namely the Ministry of higher Education and Scientific Research. Higher education in Jordan is also guided by the Royal letters, Royal initiatives related to Higher Education, and the inter-sector National Agenda(s) and National Strategic plans. The most important laws that directly regulate the work of higher education in Jordan are the “Higher Education and Scientific Research” Law number (17) for the year 2018 as amended by “Higher Education and

332

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Scientific Research” Law number (17) for the year 2019; and the “Jordan Universities Law” number (18) for the year 2018 as amended by “Jordan Universities Law” 18 for the year 2019. From these main laws many bylaws emanate. The HEIs themselves have their own bodies: The Board of Trustees, The University Council, and the Dean Council, and down to the Deanship and heads of department.

THE RATIONALE FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN Table 21.1 suggests a remarkable increase of HEIs since their modest beginnings in the 1960s. This increase was in a sense an extension to the mass school education in the postindependence Arab countries, which made education and later higher education an important tool for social mobility, social justice, and re-engineering the society in general. Universities have come to be seen not only as sheer academic entities but also as engines of economic and social transformation, means to improve the employability of the youth, to successfully integrate into the global economy and enter the knowledge-based economy (Al Attari, 2016; Al Attari, 2015). K-based economy requires a highly educated workforce with particular skills like fluency in English, computer literacy, efficiency, abilities and global inter-cultural competences that enable the youth to compete not only in the national but also in the international globalized labor market. In response to the massification of higher education many Arab countries, including Jordan, introduced, encouraged, and legitimized novel forms of higher education including private universities, virtual learning, open universities, decentralized campuses, parallel education, franchised programs, and International Branch Campuses (IBCs) (Buckner, 2011; Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019; Al Attari, 2015). Given the limited resources, universities were under pressure to “do more with less” (that is to provide more places with lean budgets). This, among other factors, made Jordanian universities “demand absorbing” universities with localized (regionalized) quality standards. No Jordanian university features among the first 500 best universities in the world. The inadequate poor research, redundancy of many disciplines, and the high student–teacher ratio are well documented in the literature, resulting in either increasing graduate unemployment or brain drain of the most skilled (Romani, 2009; Lababneh and Al Attari, 2010). Lack of funds is a chronic acute problem that reflects badly on the performance of universities in Jordan. The majority of public universities in Jordan suffer budget deficit while many private universities struggle to survive. Internationalization of Arab Higher education has been advanced with a view to providing valuable and diverse academic and cultural experiences through which quality of education can be improved, innovation can be fostered, best practices in learning and teaching can be disseminated, and employability of students in the international job market can be enhanced. It may help access to existing international mobility networks, internationally recognized resources, legitimacy, and credible accreditation (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). Out of this recognition of the importance of internationalization of higher education the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Jordan incorporated the international orientation in its vision, mission, objectives, and its Strategic Plans since the early years of this century (Malkawi, 2013). Almost all public and private universities followed suit, with different levels of breadth and width. However, my investigation did not reveal any policy on the national level regarding IoHE per se in

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

333

Jordan. Malkawi (2013) arrived at the same conclusion. Essentially though, IoHE is addressed with different levels of importance and under different rubrics within the national strategies, the strategy of the MoHE, and the strategic plans of universities. Within this context it should be noted that the MoHE had established units that are directly involved in the internationalization of higher education, including the “International Cooperation and Projects Unit,” the “Directorate of Recognition and Equalization of Qualifications,” and the “Expatriate Students Affairs Directorate.” A Committee is also established at MoHE to coordinate the affairs of students who are sent on scholarships to foreign universities.

IoHE IN NATIONAL DOCUMENTS I will hereunder discuss three documents that govern and guide the MoHE to see how internationalization is conceptualized as this is carried over to the official document of individual universities. Article 3 of the Higher Education Law number (23) for the year 2009 and amendments thereof identify the aims of HE, prominent among which are: ●

Deepening Islamic doctrine and values and strengthening national loyalty.

●

Maintaining the democratic approach and academic freedom.

●

Promoting the national heritage and international culture.

●

●

●

Maintaining the Arabic language as the medium of instruction and publication and considering English language as a supporting language. Mastering one foreign language at least that is relevant to their specialization. Enhancing relations in the field of higher education with Arab and international countries and institutions.

The above items suggest that higher education reconciles nationalization, regionalization, and internationalization. It is required for “strengthening national loyalty” and “promoting the national heritage and international culture.” Sufficient space is given to regionalization (a term that I use to denote the fact that Jordan is an integral part of the Arab nation as provided for in the Constitution). Regionalization is evident in “maintaining Arabic language as the medium of instruction and publication” and “Deepening Islamic doctrine and values.” However, higher education is also required in “maintaining the democratic approach and academic freedom.” Mastering a foreign language at least and using English as a supporting language are attached special significance. Finally, it is required to enhance relations with Arab and international countries and institutions. The vision of the National Strategy for the Higher Education and Scientific Research Sector for the Years 2007–2012 looks forward to “Having a high quality higher education system, capable of preparing highly-qualified human resources that are able to meet the current and future needs of society and compete at the Arab and international levels,” and “Improving and modernizing study plans and academic programs in line with the requirements of national and pan-Arab development, taking into account the scientific and technological developments at the global level.” A shift is obvious in this National Strategy Document towards a market-driven terminology such as “preparing human resources,” “meeting the current and future needs of society,” “competing on the Arab and international levels” and “taking into account the scientific and technological developments at the global level.”

334

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

“The Strategic Plan Document 2015–2018” issued by the MoHE articulates the vision of the Ministry as “Internationally Distinct Higher Education.” The objectives are “graduates that meet the current as well as future needs of the society and that can compete on the Arab and international levels,” in addition to “encouraging scientific research.” The Strategy was prepared based on the Strategic Planning model after conducting SWOT analysis. It uses corporate language by specifying partners and service recipients. The business terminology is evident in relating higher education in Jordan to “educational tourism” and obtaining international projects and grants. The market-driven approach is also obvious in considering graduates who go to work abroad as sources of foreign currency. By the same token it emphasizes the recruitment of foreign students as another source of hard currency. This corporate language is new to higher education literature in Jordan.

IoHE AT INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL Following the Ministry of Higher Education, almost all universities in Jordan established administrative unit(s) charged with implementing internationalization. The units are given similar titles and positions in the hierarchy. Among those titles are “International Affairs Office,” International Relations Office, and International Projects Office, The Department of Inter-relations and Projects, International Affairs Unit, and Deanship of Academic Development and International Outreach. Due to its bi-nationality and industrial orientation, the German Jordanian University (GJU) has a German Vice President and many directorates such as the International Office, the Projects Office, and the Office of Industrial Links. Philadelphia University has an Advisor to the President for International Affairs. Similarly, Petra University has an assistant to the President for International Affairs. Irrespective of titles or positions in the hierarchy, the assignments are similar and cover three main areas: enhancing and activating the relationship with the external institutions, agencies and partners; raising awareness of the university’s internal public to utilize the external opportunities whether in terms of grants or jobs; and satisfying international standards with a view to elevate the ranking of the university.

Internationalization in the Official Literature of the Universities in Jordan Internationalization is incorporated in the official documents (vision and mission statements and strategic plans documents) of almost all universities in Jordan albeit with different levels of emphasis. The analysis of those statements reveals five main categories of official literature in terms of emphasis on internationalization, as displayed in Table 21.2: The first category is represented by the GJU and the American University of Maa’daba (AUM), the former being built on the model of German Applied Sciences Universities and the latter on the American model. The strong market-driven orientation of some public universities, such as Balqa and Mu’ata universities, may reflect a growing concern for survival amidst a fierce competition on the local, regional, and international levels. On the other hand, it may reflect a real concern for the rising levels of unemployment among graduates, which is usually attributed to the failure of the universities to match education to the needs of the market. However, most universities stick to the roots of higher education in Jordan as a system with national agenda and regional (Arabic) affiliation besides the international orientation and the pursuit of advanced international

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

335

TABLE 21.2 Internationalization in the official literature of some Jordanian universities Emphasis

Example terms and phrases

Strong Internationalization with emphasis on both the market and the humanistic values

“Holistic education and dedication to using wisdom and science to build a better world,” “a place of understanding and dialogue” “to survive today’s fiercely competitive and technologically oriented world”

Mainly market driven

Competition, entrepreneurship, sustainability and excellence, applying international standards and considering the needs of the international markets

Internationalization with humanistic and intercultural elements, and subscription to the Islamic ideals

Towards quality, distinction, and internationalization, subscription to the Islamic and sublime ideal, the global orientation and mutual understanding with all cultures

Mainly national and regional

Excellence at both the national and regional levels, serve society, achieve the goals of national development through preparing loyal men and women who have loyalty to their nation, and a sense of civic and moral responsibility and a devotion to the fundamental values of human life.

Nationalization, regionalization, internationalization with Islamization

“Highlighting the Arab Islamic roots and establishing the Islamic relevance to science and knowledge” and “Strengthening relations with Scientific Islamic and International institutes.”

ranking. This is evident in the official literature of the old established universities such as the University of Jordan and Yarmouk University. The official literature of these universities blends the international aspirations and competition with the subscription to the Islamic and sublime ideals, the global orientation, and mutual understanding with all cultures. The Islamic content is more visible in the official literature of the universities that were established as “International Islamic Universities,” particularly Al ALbait University and the Islamic Sciences and World University. Such orientation is similar to that of international Islamic universities in other parts of the world, such as Malaysia. For instance, the International Islamic University Malaysia emphasizes both the “Internationalization” dimension represented in “Enhancing the values of dialogue, openness and academic freedom and respect to others” besides establishing the Islamic relevance to modern science and knowledge (Hashim, 2015). Al Hashimiyya University, which is a relatively young and public university, places more significance on the national and regional dimensions and the goals of national development and loyalty to the nation. It is noteworthy that four universities, namely Yarmouk University (YU), Jordan University for Science and Technology (JUST), German Jordanian University (GJU), and Princess Sumayya University for Science and Technology (PSUST) have an “internationality dimension” as an independent component of their strategic plans rather than being scattered under different parts, as is the case in other universities. This points to an awareness of these universities of the importance attached to internationalization. Besides internationalization

336

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

through academic mobility and research, said “internationality dimensions” touch upon aspects that are not referred to in the official literature of other universities such as “Diversity and Accepting the other” and the “multi disciplinarity,” which constitute important aspects of the IoC, IaH, and the comprehensive internationalization.

Academic Mobility The official literature available on the websites of different universities points to the keenness of those universities to recruit international students. Following the MoHE, all universities established units to take care of the expatriate students. Generally speaking, foreign students are seen as a source of hard currency. It is only the JUST that puts “recruiting talented foreign students” on its strategic plan; furthermore, it calls for creating grants program for foreign as well as local students. It is highly probable that this is because JUST is a science and technology university that realizes the role of talented students in advancing the status of the university. GJU emphasizes the role of culture and international understanding as an objective for recruiting foreign students, particularly from Germany and Europe. German students come to GJU to spend a semester or a year in Jordan. GJU aims to enhance the number of incoming students from Germany and the EU from currently 100 up to 200 in each academic year within the next few years. In contrast, PSUST targets American students in particular. According to the website of PSUST there were 331 foreign students, the vast majority of them (96 percent) being Americans. The cultural dimension is also obvious in PSUST’s plan to recruit international students and to encourage Western students to study in Amman with a view to gaining insights into life in the Middle East. Table 21.3 displays figures related to the volume of the student and staff body in all universities as of 2016–2017. Table 21.3 shows that private universities accommodate a slightly higher percentage of expatriate students (51 percent) than do the public universities (46 percent) and regional universities (3 percent). Expatriate students represent 14 percent of the undergraduate student body and 16.13 percent of the postgraduate student body. According to the statistics of the MoHE, expatriate students belong to 106 nationalities. I grouped them into regional/cultural blocks that represent similar characteristics as many nationalities are represented by one or two students. Table 21.4 shows that the vast majority (88.52 percent) is from neighboring Arab countries of whom the Palestinians (including those from across the Green Zone) constitute the overwhelming majority (9,844) followed by the Iraqis (7,100), the citizens of the GCCA (7,008), Syrians (6,614) and finally students

TABLE 21.3 Higher education in Jordan: Number of universities, students, and staff Number of students Type of No. of university universities

Jordan BA

Graduate

Expatriate Total

BA

Grad

Total

Number of staff

Public Private Regional

10 20 2

170,155 43,792 5,206

16,186 2,628 1,164

18,6341 15,516 46,420 19,257 6,370 824

2,699 753 391

18,215 20,010 1,215

7,611 3,016 294

Total

32

219,153

19,978

239,131 35,597

3,843

39,440

10,921

Source: Indicators of higher education sector 2016–2017 (MoHE).

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

337

TABLE 21.4 Expatriate students by nationality Number Palestinians (including those from across the Green Zone) Iraqis GCCA Syrians Islamic Countries Other countries Total

9,844 7,100 7,008 6,614 4,347 4,527

% 25 18 17.8 16.8 11 11.4

39,440

Source: Indicators of higher education in Jordan 2016–2017 (MoHE).

from Islamic majority countries (East Asia, Subcontinent) and Muslim minorities (4,347). Students from Western countries are a tiny minority. The outbound mobility (whether it is to obtain a degree or spend one or two semesters in a foreign university) gets less attention and is given a small amount space in the official literature of the universities and in that of the MoHE. While there are specific statistics on the inbound student mobility there are no statistics on the outbound students, probably because the vast majority of outbound students go to study abroad on their own rather than on a scholarship. It is also probable that there are many destinations for those students with no official body to contact them. Phrases like “Sending students to prestigious international universities” and “Sending talented students on scholarships to distinguished international universities” may be found in the official literature of very few universities, particularly the Government universities. But in practice Jordanian universities find it cost effective to appoint ready PhD holders, particularly in humanities and social sciences, rather than to send fresh graduates to get higher degrees, much less to send them to “study abroad” for one or two semesters. Except for GJU, where “Each single GJU student spends one semester in one of the 120 German partner universities and spends in addition one semester in a company or organization in Germany,” other universities very rarely apply this. The young American University of Ma’adaba commends and encourages taking advantage of “study abroad” programs but does not make it mandatory. Academic staff mobility, whether inbound or outbound, is also attached significance in the official literature particularly that of the core universities in Jordan. They talk about recruiting and inviting renowned scholars from prestigious universities and about encouraging their staff to go to international universities whether to conduct “post doctorate” studies, spend their sabbatical leaves, or make short academic visits. As for the inbound staff mobility, there are no accurate statistics regarding the numbers of foreign staff at Jordanian universities. However, the number of these academics at private universities is more than those in public universities. I estimate that the figure approximates 1,000, but these academics are often under threat of losing their contracts, to be replaced with local PhD holders who aspire for a place at public as well as private universities (particularly in the humanities, social sciences, and IT specialties). Some universities (i.e., Yarmouk University, YU)) terminated the contracts of non-Jordanian academics. During the writing of this chapter, the Ministry of Labour started tightening, at best regulating, the renewal or issuance of work permits for foreign academic staff. This step represents a stand-off between supporters and opponents.

338

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Concerning outbound staff mobility, Jordanian academics (particularly in the humanities, social sciences, and IT specialties) rarely spend their sabbatical leave in prestigious universities, as is the ambition of the strategic plans in different universities, or dedicate their sabbatical leave for research. The majority seeks a (well) paid teaching job at other universities, particularly in the Gulf, or at a local university thus defeating the purpose of the leave. Academics usually withdraw their applications for sabbaticals if they fail to get a teaching position in another local or Arab Gulf university. Rarely do academics, particularly from humanities and social sciences, spend sabbatical leaves at non-Arab universities. However, this issue needs further empirical investigation. It is noteworthy that private universities, being profit oriented, do not give sabbatical leaves for their academics. Some universities feel that a sizeable percentage of their academic staff (59 percent) is from within the area, as is the case with Balqa Applied University as of 2016. Conversely, 12 percent are graduates from Western universities while the remaining percentage is from Asian and Arab universities. According to the website of the university, twenty-six prospective staff are sent to international universities on scholarship to get PhDs. Balqa University includes in its plan “Supporting sabbatical leaves and post doctorate research.” Other universities such as YU consider it a point in their favor to have “A number of academic staff who graduated from international prestigious universities.” YU included in its strategic aims “Recruiting academic staff who graduated from international prestigious universities.” Similarly, it included in its “internationality dimension” items such as “Adopting policies and instructions to attract academic staff,” “Increase numbers of distinguished non-Jordanian academic Staff,” and “Increase exchange of academic staff with prestigious universities.” The German Jordanian University (GJU) has a clear policy on this aspect. “The Flying Faculty Program” supports professors/lecturers especially from the partner German universities to teach specific courses at GJU with a view to add value and expertise to the regular curriculum offered by the faculties. The FF program also includes potential lecturers form industrial partners, in order to enhance the relevance of the applied science teaching, and to further the cooperation between faculties and industry.

Institutional Mobility There is no provision in law that impedes opening foreign HEIs in Jordan. However, there are at present only one foreign (American) university (AUM), and one bi-national German Jordanian University (GJU). The New York Institute of Technology, that once operated in partnership with JUST, closed before it came into its own. Novel forms of institutional mobility are experienced. The Middle East University (a Jordanian private university) is hosting the University of Bedfordshire, along with its global partner London School of Commerce to operate an International Program for Undergraduate and Postgraduate levels. The hosted programs will offer courses in the field of Business Administration, IT, Media, and Graphic design. Degrees issued from the University of Bedfordshire (UOB), UK are approved by MoHE in Jordan and the Jordanian Higher Education Accreditation Commission and Scientific Research and stamped by the British Council in Jordan. We have to wait and see if this attempt survives the test of time. Institutional mobility in terms of Jordanian HEIs opening branches outside Jordan is still an aspiration rather than an ongoing concern.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

339

Internationalization of Research/Publications Research is attached particular significance in the official literature of the universities in Jordan. “Publishing in international journals,” “participating in international seminars, conferences and workshops,” “rewarding translated books,” “improving research to satisfy international standards,” “marketing research,” “inviting, recruiting and conducting research with renowned researchers,” and “forging relations with prestigious research centres” appear on the websites of most universities as strategies to achieve internationality. Philadelphia University’s research plan is unique in including “disseminating research culture.” Some universities such as Balqa University and YU highlight the role of funds from international agencies and international donors and building research partnerships with international agencies. JUST being a university of science and technology is more specific in designating Scopus indexed journals as venues for publication. It directs its academics towards the “citation index,” the “industry related research,” and increasing number of patents. In contrast, Al Albayt University, being an Islamic oriented university, encourages research related to the problems of the Islamic world. Despite the importance placed on research, and on the plans to elevate research to international levels in order to improve their ranking, the universities realize the challenges lying ahead such as the “small number of research that is published in international journals.” This low volume of research is typically attributed to the “Humble financial support for research” that quickly evaporates and to the dormant external agreements which need to be activated. It is highly probable that the weakness in research is attributed, among other things, to the fact that public universities are teaching universities that are under pressure to provide seats for the exponentially increasing numbers of school leavers. On the other hand, almost all public universities suffer budget deficits, which curbs their capability to support research. Students’ fees are the main source of income for private universities, which are under pressure to satisfy their shareholders by distributing dividends. Weakness in research is usually lamentable on the Arabic regional level. Almansour (2016), for instance, suggests lack of research infrastructure, funding, and resources, in addition to unmotivated faculty, as primary causes for the dilemma of Arab research. She recommends building a research infrastructure and an environment that motivates researchers. She holds that using English as the language of research and the emphasis on basic science are crucial elements to developing a sound research university. The promotion system, which depends on quantifying the number of published articles in refereed journals, is not conducive to quality research. Only recently have academics in Jordan been encouraged to publish in Scopus-indexed journals. Publishing in first-tier journals is expected to be adversely affected by the lack of outside staff and a weakness in the English language among other points. The GJU, PSUST, and JUST, being science and technology universities that use English as a medium of instruction, and as a consequence have academics who graduate from foreign international universities, may become internationally visible as far as research is concerned and this may help in scoring advanced ranking.

International Partnerships Most universities include “international agreements” and MoUs in their strategic plans, in their role to help achieve internationalization. For instance, Amman Arab University’s

340

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

website talks about the partnerships with regional and international universities, twinning programs, academic agreements, and MoUs. JUST mentions that there are more than eighty agreements with external regional and international bodies. Balqa mentions that in 2016 it concluded twenty-five local agreements; twenty-three regional and forty-four international. YU puts the number at ninety-three agreements. Besides links with leading universities in science and engineering in the United States, Taiwan, Europe, and Turkey, PSUST has established an Industry Advisory Board, with members selected from active private sector entrepreneurs and members of PSUST alumni. The Industry Advisory Board’s main function is to systematize and strengthen effective interaction with industry and ICT, engineering, and business. GJU has strong cooperation with Institutions of Higher Education worldwide, especially with German Universities of Applied Sciences. GJU has established close ties with over sixty German partner universities. GJU is linked with many other universities through bilateral agreements for cooperation, collaboration, and exchange of faculty members and students. These include Arab universities in the region, as well as European, North American, and Asian universities.

Language The official literature and practice in Jordanian universities point to the significance given to foreign language(s), particularly English. English language is the medium of instruction in the medical specialties, natural sciences, engineering, and some other specialties in all universities in Jordan. It is also widely used as a supporting language in humanities and social sciences. Academics are encouraged to publish in English language journals and to participate in international conferences. However, universities which did a SWOT analysis showed concern for the weakness in English of students particularly in the humanities and social sciences and regarding the low volume of research published in English. Arabic for non-Arabic speakers is also given attention. This is particularly so as to attract Muslim students who come from majority as well as minority Muslim countries to study Islam and Arabic language. Language centers usually offer both Arabic and English courses. For instance, GJU enhances the position of German language. French language is offered at YU while UoJ offers wide combinations of English and other European and Asian languages. Al Albayt University gives attention to Muslim world languages and Live languages: Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Italian, English, French, German, Spanish. At Philadelphia University the Language Centre offers English and Arabic as compulsory requirements besides French, Italian, Hebrew, and Chinese as optional. The cultural and international understanding is highlighted in the teaching of foreign languages besides the academic and professional purposes as suggested by the websites of some universities. GJU associates language acquisition with “global citizenship, respect for difference and learning from others within an international environment.” It considers “every teacher is language teacher and every student is language learner.”

HE Programs Focusing on International Issues Internationalization of higher education could be achieved through concern for international issues in the form of International Affairs Programs. By “International Issues” I mean interdepartmental, interdisciplinary (multidisciplinary), inter-cultural issues that do not fall within any particular specialty. There are limited programs of this kind in universities in Jordan. YU has two centers, namely the “Centre for the studies of immigration, emigrants

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

341

and forced immigration” and “Princess Basma Jordanian Women Studies Centre.” At UoJ there is “Prince Husain Bin Abdallah Centre for International Studies,” which offers globaloriented studies programs in “Conflict Resolution, American studies, sustainable development, human rights and human development.” The approach at this institute is multidisciplinary, to study international affairs with a view to make it a regional center for academic exchange in the field of international studies, enhance the values of social justice, diversity, mutual respect and understanding, and to produce graduates with an international mindset and local application. In congruence with its Islamic orientation, the “Centre for Islamic World Studies” at Al Albayt University aims to study the problems of the Islamic World and to build databases to provide information on the countries and peoples of the Islamic world and Islamic minorities. Al Albayt also has the “Graduate studies Islamic studies institute” and the “House of Wisdom Institute” (named after the Baghdad’s House of Wisdom in the Golden Islamic Ages).

IaH, IoC, and CI These concepts per se are not addressed in a coherent way in the official literature of the universities in Jordan. However, concepts such as cultural diversity, cultural understanding, and similar related concepts are explicitly touched upon in scattered places of the official literature of some universities. But most universities are generally reticent on these concepts. These concepts are more visible in the official literature of the GJU, which “is keen to incubate a multicultural society where tolerance, dialogue, rapprochement and mutual understanding are fostered in an environment of open-mindedness, respect and appreciation of differences.” Similarly, Philadelphia university emphasizes these ideals but blends them with the Islamic principles. Its website calls for “Raising the awareness of the contemporary international thought,” “Instilling critical reflection,” “Critical engagement with human thought and Islamic legacy,” “Appreciating the cultural engagement and diversity,” and “Instilling the skills of dialogue, tolerance and accepting the other.” Cultural competences, global citizenship, and related concepts are also emphasized at AUM, which is unique in its reference to faith. This is in congruence with the AUM’s religious Christian leanings as it was initially opened with the blessing of HH Pope Benedict XVI in a Christian majority city. It calls “To honor the pursuit of truth in all its manifestations by any ethical method, especially through the integration of knowledge across disciplines, and the imaginative and creative exploration of new ideas with the understanding that faith and reason are compatible” and “To intelligently apply the best scientific and ethical principles for the care and sustainability of God’s creations.”

CONCLUSION Higher education in Jordan was established in the 1960s to serve national purposes. It was, until the 1990s, government sponsored. However, the “zeitgest” of the 1990s and 2000s led this system first to privatize then to internationalize. These paradigm shifts were not without turbulence. Privatization and internationalization are hotly debated with people divided on all points of the controversy. Much as there are supporters who see this transformation as inevitable, there are opponents who warn of risks involved in these socalled reforms. Therefore, it is expected to counter tensions between nationalization and internationalization, between centrality and independence of universities and between

342

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

service-oriented and profit-oriented higher education with all the ramifications that such tensions leave. The tension may sometimes cause paradigm-shattering moments that adversely affect the internationalization process. For instance, while academic staff mobility is considered one essential element of internationalization, universities in Jordan are now under pressure to employ novice PhD holders in order to localize the academic staff. Some universities (i.e., Yarmouk University) acceded, and terminated foreign academic staff to replace them with local PhD holders, although there were objections to such a step. The difficult economic situation and the limited job opportunities made higher education a main tool for social mobility of the locals. The vast majority of universities in Jordan emphasize “internationalization” and include, with different levels, international themes in their official literature. However, the fact that universities are subject to the MoHE restricts the universities’ initiatives despite all the rhetoric about their independence. The instability of the legislations on higher education is considered one of the impediments to universities. The independence of universities in Jordan narrows or widens depending on the legislation and the MoHE orientation. For instance, while the presidents of the universities, until very recently, were appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the board of trustees, they will be appointed from this year by the MoHE directly. Therefore, it is reasonable to talk about “controlled” internationalization, as Massadeh (2012) described it. It could also be inferred that the IoHE is a reluctant business. This is seen in the reluctance to licence foreign higher education institutions to operate in Jordan. New York Institute of Technology, which once operated in Jordan in partnership with JUST, did not continue. A new form of “institutional mobility” started. The British Bedfordshire University is hosted by the Middle East Private University to operate undergraduate and postgraduate programs in Jordan in a number of specialties. The analysis of the websites of the MoHE and most of the universities shows that there is awareness of internationalization and a willingness to internationalize but much is left to be desired. To start with, there is no policy for IoHE per se on the national or institutional level. Some universities (i.e., YU) included “internationality dimension” in their strategic plans. Others (i.e., GJU) started from the very beginning with an international orientation. Some universities gave scant attention to internationalization while some others gave more attention to the national and regional levels. To be fair, universities with national and regional (Arab) orientation may have a realistic vision. Regionalization and internationalization may be seen as closely bound up with each other and both merge as a tributary to internationalization (Al Attari, 2016). Knight (2013) views regionalization as an evolutionary process, which builds on existing realities and future endeavors that involve functional, organizational, and political strategies that complement one other. Altbach (2007) looked at the role of Hong Kong universities in the Chinese cultural sphere from this “regionalization” perspective. In Western Europe, Europeanization is an integral part of internationalization. Japan’s internationalization policy puts more emphasis on the East Asian region where Japan was once the Imperial master (Akiyoshi, 2009). The Arab higher education landscape is more conducive to regionalization, at least at this moment in time. The geographic proximity and relatively cheap travel costs, in addition to the same language and culture, are supposed to make Arab universities attractive to Arab and Muslim students. However, many students from Arab and Muslim countries will look to the international reputation and ranking that characterize many Western rather than Arab universities.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

343

The statistics presented in this chapter suggest that the overwhelming majority of foreign students in Jordanian universities are from Arab nationalities, particularly neighboring Arab countries in addition to students from Muslim majority and minority countries who are enrolled in the Arabic and Islamic programs. Students from the Western and OECD countries are a tiny minority. By the same token, the official literature of many universities calls for recruiting academics who graduate from prestigious international universities. However, popular pressures are mounting against preferring graduates according to the doctorate-granting university. These pressures were successful in compelling universities to remove the place of graduation as a condition/allowance for appointment. This may lead to a decrease of outside staff, particularly in the humanities and social sciences specialties. Finally, the official literature of almost all universities is reticent on the most recent conceptions of internationalization, namely the IaH, IoC, and CI. However, elements of these concepts are scattered in many places of the literature so one needs to piece these together, but they can be built upon in the strategic plans of the universities in the future. Taken together, the findings of the analysis reported in this chapter support the assumption expressed in the title of the chapter—that higher education in Jordan is at the confluence of nationalization and internationalization. Much as there are aspirations and plans to internationalize there are constraints and impediments. There is even uncertainty that causes tension between the two extremes of the continuum. Therefore, there should be a clear vision and political will whether or not the higher educational system is meant to internationalize; whether universities should be teaching or research institutions and whether or not higher education should be for-profit. Each approach has its requirements and ramifications. Given the limitations of the methodology, particularly the dependence on content analysis of websites and document analysis, the conclusions should be considered carefully. Further empirical studies and teamwork are needed.

REFERENCES Abyad, M. (2012). Education in the Arab World. Syria: Ministry of Culture [in Arabic]. Akiyoshi, Y. (2009). The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities. Centre for the Advancement of Higher Education, Tohoku University. Al-Agtash, S., and Khadra, L. (2019). Internationalization context of Arabia higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(2): 68–81. Almansour, S. (2016). The crises of research and global recognition in Arab universities. Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education, doi.org/10.5339/nmerjre.2016.1 Altbach, P. (2005) Globalization and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal World. The NEA Almanac of Higher Education. Altbach, P. (2007). Traditions and Transitions: The International Imperative of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Al Attari, A. (2015). Privatization of Arab Higher Education with special reference to Jordan. In Hattori, M. and Hashim, R. (eds), Reforms in Islamic Higher Education. Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press. Al Attari, A. (2016). Internationalization of Higher Education with reference to the Arab context: Proposed model. IIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1): 6–27. Brown, S., and Jones, E. (2007). Internationalizing Higher Education. London: Routledge.

344

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Buckner, E. (2011). The role of higher education in the Arab state and society: Historical legacies and recent reform patterns. Comparative and International Higher Education, 3: 21–26. De Wit, H., and Hunter, F. (2015a). Understanding internationalization of higher education in the European context. In De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., and Egron-Polak, E. (eds), Internationalization of Higher Education, The European Parliament. http://www.europarl. europa.eu/studies De Wit, H., and Hunter, F. (2015b). The future of internationalization of higher education in Europe. International Higher Education, 83: 1–10. De Wit, H., and Merkx, G. (2012). The history of internationalization of higher education. In Deardoff, D., de Wit, H., Heyl, J., and Adams, T. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education. Berkeley, CA : SAGE , pp. 43–59. Gacel-Ávila, J. (2018). Comprehensive internationalization in Latin America. Higher Education Policy, 25: 493–510. Green, M.F. (2012). Universities must be clear and honest about internationalization. University World News (15 April). Gunsyma, S. (2014). Rationales for Internationalization of Higher Education: The Case of Russia, MA thesis, University of Tampere. Hashim, R. (2015). Internationalization of contemporary Islamic higher education and ummatic development: A case study of the international Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). In Hatouri, M., and Hashem, R. (eds), Reforms in Islamic Higher Education. Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press. Hunter, B., White, G., and Godbey, G. (2006). What does it mean to be globally competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3): 267–285. Hwang, J., McMillan, S., and Lee, G. (2003). Corporate websites as advertising: An analysis of function, audience and message strategy. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(2): 10–23. Kerr, C. (1990). The internationalization of learning and the nationalization of the purposes, of higher education: Two “laws of motion” in conflict? European Journal of Education, 25(1): 5–19. Kerr, C. (1994). Higher Education Cannot Escape History, Issues for the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Knight, J. (2013). A model for the regionalization of higher education: The role and contribution of tuning. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 1: 105–125. Knight, J., and De Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for Internationalization of Higher Education: Historical and Conceptual Perspectives. The European Association for International Association, Amsterdam. Knight, J., and De Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future. International Higher Education, 95: 1–5. Lababneh, A., and Al Attari, A. (2010). The role of Jordanian higher education in developing human resources. Journal of the Association of Arab Universities, 56: 257–289 [in Arabic]. Lee, J., and Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America: International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3): 381–409. Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2): 205–221. Leask, B. (2012). Internationalization of the curriculum in action. A guide: University of South Australia.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

345

Leask, B. (2015). Internationalization of the curriculum. London: Routledge Lunn, J. (2008). Global perspectives in higher education: Taking the agenda forward in the United Kingdom. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3): 231–254. Malkawi, H. (2013) Internationalization at Jordanian Universities. Presentation at the HRK German Rectors’ Conference, Irbid Jordan. Massadeh, N. (2012). Internationalization of Higher Education in Jordan. Middle East Institute, Washington. MoHE website (n.d.). Indicators of Higher Education Sector 2016–2017. MoHE website (n.d.). Legislation governing higher education in Jordan. Romani, V. (2009). The Politics of Higher Education in the Middle East: Problems and Prospects. Massachusetts: Crown Centre for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University. Shiel, C., and Takeda, S. (2008). Global vision and global citizenship at Bournemouth University. In Shiel, C., and Takeda, S. (eds), Education for Sustainable Development: Graduates as Global Citizens, Proceedings of an International Conference. Bournemouth University, September 2007, pp. 3–8. Teekens, H. (2013). Internationalization at home: Crossing other borders. University World News, 276. Retrieved from www.universityworldnews.com Teichler, U. (2017) Internationalization trends in higher education and the changing role of international student mobility. Journal of International Mobility, 5: 177–216. Turner, J., and Bernard, P. (1993). The “German model” and the graduate school: The University of Michigan and the origin myth of the American university. History of Higher Education Annual, 13: 69–98. Vardhan, J. (2015). Internationalization and the changing paradigm of higher education in the GCC countries. SAGE Open, 5(2), https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244015580377 Woldegiyorgis, A., Proctor, D., and De Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of research: Key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2): 161–176.

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Internationalization and Globalization in Libyan Higher Education SALEM MELOOD ABODHER

INTRODUCTION In many developing and developed countries, higher education is becoming increasingly important and being considered as the cornerstone of economic and social development (Alam, Haque, and Siddique, 2007: 14). These countries are therefore seeking to become more focused by improving and developing their higher education policies. Over the last twenty years, higher education institutions have faced many challenges, in terms of their methods and management as well as financing as a result of globalization and the complex technological advances in global communication (Avgerou and Berleur, 2005: 100) Focusing on the topic at hand, over the past few years the Libyan policymakers have started to work harder on expanding, developing, and improving the Libyan higher education system in order to keep up with the rapid changes occurring worldwide. The Libyan policymakers, therefore, “struggle to adopt clear policies to improve the level of education across the country” (Alzain, Clark, and Ireson, 2014: 77). Higher education in Libya, as in various other developing countries, is facing some serious problems and challenges, as observed by Abodher: “The globalization can be seen as a process that may have a significant impact on all sectors of the society, particularly in the higher education sector as one of the most important sectors” (2014: 76). This chapter explores the Libyan higher education system’s development with a focus on the opportunities and challenges presented by globalization and internationalization. The chapter commences with a brief description of the Libyan context and will cover the origins and current structure of Libya’s higher education system. The second part will provide relevant background information on the concepts of globalization before exploring its impacts on the development of the higher education system in Libya. An investigation of some aspects of the internationalization of higher education (IHE) in Libya in the globalization era then ensues. The chapter examines the aspects, opportunities, and challenges of IHE in Libya through an examination of the influence of globalization and internationalization that drive and impact on Libyan higher education. Finally, based on the discussion and analyses made, a conclusion will be offered.

346

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION IN LIBYA

347

THE LIBYAN ENVIRONMENT In order to understand and explain how processes of globalization and internalization have impacted on the development of the Libyan higher education sector, it is important to introduce and provide a clear picture of Libya. This is achieved through describing its geography, people, and its politics. Libya is a developing country. In terms of size, it is the fourth largest country in Africa, and the seventeenth largest in the world, with about 1,759,540 square kilometres (i.e., 679,182 square miles). Libya is one of the Arabic countries, located in North Africa, within the tropical area, with latitudes of 19 degrees and 34 degrees north and longitudes of 9 degrees and 26 degrees east. Libya has extensive borders with six other African countries: Algeria and Tunisia to the west, Egypt and the Sudan to the east, Chad and Niger to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea with a long coastline of 1,900 kilometres to the north. This very strategic location gives the Libyan state an important role in establishing links with countries in Africa, and developed countries in Europe and around the world, especially in the context of globalization and IHE. Libya’s proximity to Europe adds to its potential to be an important trading partner for southern and eastern Mediterranean countries, and for the rest of the region, especially through the expansion of the cooperation on information communication technology (ICT) between Libya and the European Union. This situation makes the country ideally placed to act as an axis for trade between the four corners of the globe. Libya also offers many incentives for foreign investors such as tax concessions. Foreign companies can be attracted not only by trade and short-term business deals but also by long-term projects, for instance in higher education, and in the technology and industry sectors. Recent statistics show that the population of Libya is approximately 6,754,507 (CIA, 2019). The growth rate of the Libyan population is 1.45 percent, and the young people aged between 15 and 54 account for 64.28 percent of the total population (CIA, 2019). Over 90 percent of the population lives along the Mediterranean coast in and between Tripoli to the west and Tobruk to the east. Arabic is the official language, along with widespread use of English, French, and Italian languages. According to Boyle (2013: 85), “Libya maintained a very high standard of living for its citizens that was comparable to that found in many of the Mediterranean countries in Europe.” From 1551 to 1911, Libya was under the Ottoman Empire. After being colonized by the Italians until 1943, the country was ruled by the British and the French military administration, until its political independence on December 24, 1951. After King Idris’ reign from 1951 to 1969, Muammar Gaddafi ruled the country for forty-two years.

THE IMPACT OF CIVIL WAR ON LIBYAN HIGHER EDUCATION Since Gaddafi’s death, Libya has gone through more than seven prime ministers. The Libyan crisis has increasingly become a global issue, with the country continuing to face a complex political turmoil, which has led to a destructive civil war. As a result of this war thousands of people have died from the fighting, and there are frequent electric outages, little business activity, with a 90 percent loss of revenue from oil (Jomana and Ashley, 2014).

348

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

During the first three years of the civil war the Libyan telecommunications were badly affected. It has been estimated that more than US$1 billion worth of telecom infrastructure was destroyed, including about 20 percent of the country’s cell sites. Reconstruction efforts are underway, and with an estimated 76 percent growth in GDP (Libya—Telecoms, Mobile and Broadband, 2013). This problematic political crisis, as well as the weakening of the standard of living and other phases of social economics, have deeply affected the IHE in Libya. According to the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (2017: 13), “due to the Libyan civil war that broke out in 2014, more than sixty-eight foreign embassies in Tripoli were forced to close down.” Because of this, it became much more difficult for Libyan students to obtain visas to study abroad and have an opportunity to study in higher education institutions in developed countries. The civil war also resulted in airports being closed, making travel between Libya and other countries much more difficult. During the civil war, many of the official organizations, institutions, and ministries in Libya such as the University of Benghazi, the central bank in Tripoli, The International Airport, the Tripoli Museum, and many other institutions were either destroyed or plundered. The civil wars and the worsening political, security, and economic context in the whole country, as well as patterns of the foreign intervention conflicts, have all had their heavy negative influence on Libyan state power and on the globalization of Libyan higher education. This situation prevented Libya’s integration into the contemporary global economy for over eight years from Gaddafi’s death in 2011 until 2019. Elabbar (2016: 11) reported that “during the past years, a significant portion of Libya’s cultural heritage, many of which we have no records, was destroyed, or stolen due to civil war, negligence of the regime and lack of adequate and institutions.”

THE LIBYAN EDUCATION SYSTEM The education system in Libya consists of four levels: 1. Pre-school education 2. Basic education 3. Secondary education 4. Tertiary education which includes advanced studies, such as a postgraduate diploma, master’s and PhD degrees. Pre-school education is not compulsory, starts at age four and ends at the age of six. However, Libyan students must complete nine years of compulsory education, which is between the ages of six to fifteen. As illustrated in Figure 22.1, the current higher education system constitutes three types of institutions: Public and Private Universities, Technical Colleges, and Higher Technical Institutions. The Ministry of Education is responsible for the co-ordination and regulation of the education system from pre-primary education to tertiary education. The Ministry of Education is responsible for the development and implementation of the higher education policy. According to the Ministry of Education (2019), there were twenty-one Libyan public universities, and seven private universities approved by the Centre for Quality Assurance and Accreditation (CQAA), including the Academy of Graduate Studies, which specialized in postgraduate studies (see Tables 22.1 and 22.2).

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION IN LIBYA

349

FIGURE 22.1: Structure of the education system in Libya. Source: Braun and Jones, 2013: 76.

TABLE 22.1 Public universities in Libya (2019) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Name of university

Establishment

Location

Website

University of Benghazi University of Tripoli Bright Star University University of Sebha Qmar Al-Mukhtar University Open University University of Zawia Elmergib University Sirte University University of Gharyan Al-Asmarya Islamic University Misurata University University of Azzaytuna Al Sanussi Islamic University University of Ajdabiya University of Bani Walid Sabratha University University of Tobruk Jufrah University Al-Zintan University Nalut University

1955 1957 1981 1983 1985 1987 1988 1991 1991 1991 1995 2000 2001 2012 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017

Benghazi Tripoli Brega Sebha Al Bayda Janzour Zawia Al-Khums Sirte Gharyan Zliten Misurata Tarhuna Al Bayda Ajdabiya Bani Walid Sabratha Tobruk Suknh Al-zintan Nalut

uob.edu.ly uot.edu.ly bsu.edu.ly sebhau.edu.ly omu.edu.ly ou.edu.ly zu.edu.ly elmergib.edu.ly su.edu.ly gu.edu.ly asmarya.edu.ly misuratau.edu.ly azu.edu.ly ios.edu.ly uoa.edu.ly bw.edu.ly sabu.edu.ly tu.edu.ly – uoz.edu.ly –

Source: The Ministry of Education (2019).

350

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 22.2 Private universities in Libya (2019) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Name of university

Establishment

Location

Website

Tripoli Private University Al-Refak University Attahadi University Libyan University University of Alhadera Africa University Khalije Libya

1999 1999 2000 2001 2001 2003 2003

Janzour Tripoli Tripoli Tajoura Tripoli Tripoli Janzour

www.utripoli.edu.ly https://www.alrefak.edu.ly/ https://www.attahadi.edu.ly/ https://www.libyanuniv.edu.ly www.alhadera.edu.ly http://ar.africaun.edu.ly/ https://www.khalijedental.com.ly

Source: The Ministry of Education (2019).

GLOBALIZATION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION The concepts of globalization and internationalization might share characteristics that are not synonymous. Offering a universal definition for globalization or internationalization is elusive, as they comprise myriad dimensions. While globalization refers more to the movement of services, people, programs, and policies, internationalization is an aspect of the complex process of globalization. Globalization can be the driving force, while internationalization is a proactive response to it: “Both internationalization and globalization push higher education towards international involvement in a globalized world” (El-Hawat, 2002: 11). According to Lutabingwa (2005), “the internationalization of tertiary education should therefore be an integral part of any government’s policies impacting on internationalization.” Pipia (2017) offers some differences between both processes in Table 22.3, while Knight (2004) discusses elements in the implications of globalization for internationalization, as shown in Table 22.4. The link between internationalization and globalization is that the two phenomena are closely connected, even though they are two fundamentally different processes. Dicken (2003: 12) argues that “Globalization is ‘qualitatively different’ from internationalization in that it represents ‘a more advanced and complex form of internationalization which implies a degree of functional integration between internationally dispersed economic

TABLE 22.3 Table of distinctions between globalization and internationalization Characteristic features Globalization

The acceleration of movement of people, ideas, knowledge, capital, goods, and services through national borders Internationalization The response of educational institutions to the globalization process

Source: Pipia (2017).

Result The process by which Competition, different cultures and commercial knowledge-transfer nations become homogeneous Higher degree of internalization results in the higher degree of globalization and vice versa

Physical mobility, academic cooperation, and academic knowledge transfer

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION IN LIBYA

351

TABLE 22.4 Table of implications of globalization for internationalization Element of globalization

Impact on higher education

Implications for international dimension of higher education

Knowledge society Increasing importance attached to the production and use of knowledge as a wealth creator for nations

Growing emphasis on continuing education, lifelong learning and continual professional development creating a greater unmet demand for postsecondary education.

New types of private and public providers delivering education and training programs across borders. For example, private media companies, networks of public/private institutions, corporate universities, multinational companies

Need to develop new skills and knowledge resulting in new types of programs and qualifications. Role of universities in research and knowledge production is changing and becoming more commercialized ICTs New development in information and communication technologies and systems

New delivery methods used for domestic and cross-border education, especially online and satellite based

Programs more responsive to market demand. Specialized training programs being developed for niche market and for professional development purposes and distributed on a worldwide basis Increased international mobility of students, academics, education, and training programs, research providers and projects. Mobility is physical and virtual

Source: Knight (2004).

activities.’” In this chapter, internationalization is regarded as differing from globalization. It is not seen as an outcome of globalization but as a process adopted by national governments to guide its response to global pressures in higher education (Kehm, 2011: 11). The role of Libyan higher education in the context of globalization is to prepare the Libyan people to confront the rapidly changing world and to provide them with the capabilities necessary to cope with the many aspects of globalization. In this regard, it is crucial to promote comparative thinking and to broaden curricula to reflect international cultural diversity. Globalization as well as internalization has an effect on higher education policy in terms of inter-national agreements and cooperation, leading to the establishment of bodies such as the United Nations and its associated agencies. Knight (1999: 13–14) argued that: “Internationalization of higher education is one of the ways a country responds to the impact of globalization yet, at the same time respects the individuality of the nation.” Therefore, internationalization and globalization are seen as different but dynamically linked concepts. Globalization can be thought of as the catalyst while internationalization is the response, albeit a response in a proactive way. Aspects of globalization (e.g., use of ICT and privatization) and internationalization (importance of the English language, mobility of students, and international collaboration) have played a major role in changing the Libyan higher education system, and have impacted it in many ways, as well as presented both challenges and opportunities for Libyan higher education institutions. In the following sections, these aspects will be discussed in detail.

352

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Globalization The current wave of globalization has created enormous challenges facing higher education systems. Higher education institutions all over the world are witnessing dramatic and sweeping transformations (Bacchus, 2008: 130), and the higher education system in countries such as Libya is not an exception. Therefore, in order to develop a clearer understanding of the globalization of higher education in Libya, it is necessary to understand what globalization means in general, and how this process has brought a lot of challenges, as well as opportunities, to the Libyan higher education system. According to Webster’s Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, 2019), “Globalization” means “the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets.” However, globalization as a phenomenon is a very complex term; there is no agreement among those interested in the issues of globalization about what it exactly means. In light of this view, Altbach (2007: 123) states that “globalization means everything—an inchoate catch-all for the external influences on society. For others, it includes only the negative side of contemporary reality.” Shahbaz, Mallick, Mahalik, and Hammoudeh (2018: 580) also state that globalization is “the international phenomenon that has been impacting the life of the human being around the world socially economically and politically.” Others describe it broadly as the increase in “economic, social, and political interdependencies around the world” (Vercˇicˇ, Zerfass, and Wiesenberg, 2015: 785). Scholte (2000: 46) considers globalization as being synonymous with internationalization, and he offers five common uses of the term, namely: 1. Internationalization: As simply another adjective to describe cross-border relations between countries. 2. Liberalisation: This refers to the removal of restrictions placed by governments on movement among countries. 3. Deterritorializations: This refers to the process of the reconfiguration of geography, so that social space is no longer wholly mapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances and territorial borders. 4. Universalisation: This refers to the process of spreading ideas and experiences to people all over the world, leading to the global harmonisation of experiences. 5. Westernisation or modernisation: Modern (i.e. Western) social structures, such as capitalism and industrialism are spread worldwide, resulting in the erosion of cultures and local independence. The concept of globalization is elusive, as pointed out earlier. Since most features of globalization are closely related, it is impossible to include them all individually in one definition, and it is difficult to establish only one clear definition. However, globalization is about changes in technologies and communications, which inevitably lead to changes in cultural beliefs and practices. (Friedman, 2005: 239) argue that globalization is about “changes in technology that speed communications and make information and knowledge available to all via the Internet into a global web. These changes have led to changes in the political and cultural spheres.” In terms of higher education, globalization has been defined as “the process and consequences of instantaneous world-wide communication made possible by new technology. The consequences include an explosive growth in the quantity and accessibility

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION IN LIBYA

353

of knowledge, and continually increasing integration and interdependence of world financial and economic systems” (Grunzweig and Rinehant, 2003: 7). Globalization in the Libyan context means that the country is more open to the world than before; this change thus requires that more attention is given to training in ICT services and other aspects of globalization, in order to improve the Libyan Higher Education System. Information Communication Technology (ICT) is considered throughout this chapter as an integral part of the accelerating pace of globalization. Globalization within this chapter therefore has been defined as a complex process resulting from explosive growth in the quantity and accessibility of knowledge, and the huge economic influx flow generated by the new Information Communication Technology. The next section explores how globalization has strongly influenced Libya’s higher education system.

Aspects of Globalization in Libyan Higher Education As mentioned previously, globalization is a very complicated process which influences most aspects of our daily life. According to Knight (2008), “globalization is challenging the higher education sector across the world and is perhaps the most fundamental challenge that higher education has faced in its history.” Globalization has changed the concept of all aspects of policymaking in Libya and, as a result, the educational system has altered radically in recent years. These changes have been oriented towards the improvement of access to higher education, the quality of higher education, greater flexibility in terms of choice, and adjustment to the needs of a market economy, education, and cost economies. For instance, the movement or trade in goods and services including educational services across international borders has become a key economic outcome of globalization. Al-Sudairy (2007: 82) argues: Arab countries—including Libya—are grateful to take part in globalization and to open their educational systems to international forces. These Arab countries should be ready to face the challenges given to them by the General Agreement on Trade in Services GATS. Membership of GATS brings challenges, in that to compete successfully with other GATS member countries which have higher levels of economic development, a skilled workforce is necessary. Globalization has given rise to great challenges for both the Libyan government and the Libyan people. For the Libyan government, globalization offers an opportunity for economic and political development. It is viewed as a way of improving the standard of living. It has also brought new technologies, investments, and development strategies, although it is suggested that it may also have eroded traditional social solidarity and identity to a certain extent. Higher education in Libya is undergoing transformation due to the forces of globalization. Over the past two decades, major economic and political changes caused by globalization have influenced all phases and stages of Libyan education and higher education in general. Abodher (2013: 296) suggests that, “in the beginning of this new age of information and communication technologies, the Libyan policy makers have started to interweave in the Libyan state (particularly in the higher education sector) in powerful ways to create alternatives to conventional communication and information options.” The globalization of knowledge, ICT, and privatization are the major aspects where a significant influence of globalization continues to be exhibited in the Libyan context. The next sections briefly discuss these areas of focus.

354

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Use of ICT in Libyan Higher Education ICT is a very important tool in higher education as it provides quick and easy access for any academic information required. According to Abodher (2014: 1547), “the new tools of ICT have become more important now than ever before because of its countless contributions in advancing the quality of all works of life including university education.” Globalization in the higher education area in Libya has had an effect through expanding the use and adoption of the new ICT as a major driving force of globalization. The force of globalization itself has contributed to bringing different solutions to aspects in the acceptance and adoption of the new ICT. This, in turn, tends to lead to improvements in, and increase the opportunities for, the new ICT acceptance adoption and use within Libyan higher institutions, as one aspect of globalization: “The accelerated adoption and use of ICTs has resulted in the globalization of information and knowledge resources” (Islam and Islam, 2007). However, the benefits and gains of globalization to the Libyan higher education system are that linkages could bring more opportunities for graduate students and staff in Libyan Universities using ICT tools such as emails to share ideas and collaborate with other academics across the world without having to travel, which facilitated the globalization of research. The Libyan universities will open up to connect with worldwide universities, in order to exchange ideas and information with the purpose of improving the quality of Libyan higher education. One of the aims of the Libyan government was to catch up with the developing world, and to keep up with the fundamental changes that are occurring in all sectors in the state. Libyan policymakers give the priority to technology and modern ICT equipment that could and should play in transforming and reforming the education and higher education sectors. Over the past few years, therefore, the Libyan government has established an effective ICT policy to improve its higher education system and integrate it into the new global economy, as well as to address the challenges arising from globalization. One of these strategies is the New Higher Education Policy Reform 2008– 2012, which was issued by the government state at the beginning of 2008. Rapid advances in information technology are influencing governments to react and respond more quickly than has ever been required in the past. Global information networks are being constructed by a variety of interconnected technologies and continue to become more sophisticated. In the context of Libyan higher education, it is vital that everyone in all areas in the country has equal access to higher education and the benefits it can bring. As a consequence, Libya, in common with other countries, is aware that reform of the education system is necessary to develop industry and improve the knowledge base in the labor force. Regarding the issue of higher education reform, it is vital that the traditions, needs, and competencies of the country be taken into account in any reforms of higher education. The Libyan government implemented a radical process of reform in the higher education sector in an attempt to address the rapid changes in the demands of society. This reform changed the colleges, department, and institutions of Libyan higher education and the principal goal of this process is to establish a knowledge-based society in Libya and to encourage the science-based development of industry. The New Higher Education Policy Reform (NHEP 2008–2012) was presented as a response to globalization and a rapidly changing society within a global economy that focuses on knowledge as its main commodity (Ministry of Education, 2010). The clearly stated aims of the New Higher Education Policy Reform 2008–2012 are related to confronting the current wave of globalization of higher education in Libya, and to keep up with the fundamental changes that are occurring:

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION IN LIBYA

355

1. ICT should be adopted to facilitate teaching and learning processes and as an instrument to disseminate information and knowledge 2. To improve the quality of education through ICT by adopting modern teaching techniques and modern teaching methods 3. To develop distance learning, and continuing education, supporting as well as encouraging the scientific and academic community to engage in research activities 4. Emphasize the role that technology and ICT might, and will, play in transforming learning by making it more accessible to individuals anywhere and everywhere 5. Reforming the methods of student training, strengthening the quality and continuously improving the Libyan university system by establishing a National Authority for Scientific Research (NASR) and a Centre for Quality Assurance and Accreditation (CQAA). The Libyan government signed agreements with many foreign higher education institutions and international organizations to get educational, technical, and technological assistance. By 2009 the Libyan government had set aside a budget of US$72 million to finance a project to use information and communications technologies to reform the higher education and scientific research system, and to establish local area networks in 149 faculties of many Libyan public universities and higher institutes, as well as to include a wide area network forming the Libyan Higher Education and Research Network (Sawahel, 2009). Given the GAIT (2010), the Libyan government has signed an agreement for the establishment of a self-benefiting Funds-in-Trust of US$72 million on ICT for capacity-building in Higher Education in Libya. The main aim of this agreement was to assist in establishing a national ICT capacity-building project in the country, and building a nationwide area network connecting all Libyan university campuses as well as the establishment of local area networks, data centers, computer labs, e-classrooms, and digital libraries, and multimedia production facilities for each university.

PRIVATIZATION IN LIBYAN HIGHER EDUCATION A study carried out by Al- Fathly and Ibrahim (2008: 190) indicated that “economic sanctions, fluctuations in oil prices and instability in the Libyan economy have had many effects on the labour market in Libya, which could have a severe impact on the movement of the labour and result in a huge loss to the Libyan economy.” Economic instability in Libya had affected educational planning at a national level. As a result, student demand outpaced the growth of the Libyan Higher Education provision to the extent that the Libyan public sector was unable to absorb the requisite numbers. Based on this consideration, the Libyan government has embarked during recent years on a policy of the development of higher education in order to meet both internal and external challenges brought by the force of globalization. The government has created new strategies to address these pressures, one of the most significant being the implementation of privatization in higher education. The main aim of the privatization of Libyan higher education was to reduce the state intervention; and the lessening of dependence by universities and other higher institutions on the Libyan public sector. The most significant of these developments has been the great expansion of the university sector; for example, seven private universities have been established and approved by the Centre for Quality Assurance and Accreditation (CQAA). However, the main and important goals of these

356

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

private universities are to focus on ways to improve their efficiency and effectiveness of management and quality. In June 2019, many Libyan officials gathered with European Union officials and European Union Member states representatives in order to support the Libyan private sector and develop the Libyan business environment by aiding projects and creating jobs to enable the building of a diversified and sustainable economy. This is a part of the European Union financed project to the tune of 7.6 million Euro called “Support to Libya for Economic Integration, Diversification and Sustainable employment (SLEIDSE).”

Internationalization In the last three decades, the conceptual understanding of internationalization has broadened and started to incorporate many international activities. This includes collaboration in teaching, research, and other projects; mobility of students and scholars; inclusion of international dimensions into the curriculum; recruitment of foreign students, establishing campuses in foreign countries; and countries collaborative works towards common frame of reference (Oyewole, 2009). The International Association of Universities IAU global survey reported that “internationalization provides various benefits such as increasing international awareness of students, enhancing cooperation and solidarity, internationalizing curriculum, strengthening research and knowledge production, and enhancing academic quality” (IAU, 2009: 19). There are many different definitions and viewpoints on what the internationalization of higher education should resemble. Knight’s (2008: 3) most accepted definition describes internationalization as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education.” Van der Wende (1997: 18), on the other hand, defines internationalization as “Any systematic effort aimed at making higher education responsive to the requirements and challenges related to the globalization of societies, economy, and labour markets.” Harman (2004) suggests four activities associated with internationalization, namely: 1. International movement of students and staff between countries 2. Internationalization of higher education curricula 3. International links for research and open learning programs, and 4. Bilateral, regional, and international recognition of higher education qualifications.

ASPECTS OF IHE IN LIBYA According to Janczyk-Strzała and Tomaszewski (2013: 67), “there is no good university without students from other countries, which view open new perspectives, without mobility, without English-language programs, and without building the most effective strategy in the global flow of the existence of scientific thought.” IHE could be a platform where mutual sharing of knowledge, skills, and research generally takes place with the objective of mutual benefit and is also aimed at national and global development. Tamrat and Teferra (2018: 434) note that “institutions consider internationalization as an important activity for the purposes of promoting teaching and resource mobilization, international research projects, and academic quality and standards.” The following sections discuss the use of English, academic mobility, and international cooperation as major aspects of IHE in the Libyan context.

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION IN LIBYA

357

Recognition of the Importance of English in Libya Crystal (2003: 43) reported that “English is the global medium of communication of the world’s scientific knowledge, especially in areas such as science and technology and ICT.” English now is the main foreign language in Libya, and a decision was taken in 2010 to consider it as the official second language, though from 1986 to 1995 the English language was removed from Libyan schools. The government stopped the teaching of English in all Libyan schools, institutes, and universities and prohibited the use of foreign languages. English departments at universities were also closed and the government arranged for the burning of all English language textbooks. El-Hawat (2002) noted that “this came about as a result of the Gaddafi regime’s belief that English was a colonial language . . . this decision had a long-lasting influence upon the quality of education delivered to Libyans, who were caught up in the campaign being waged against English by the political apparatus.” This prevented Libyan graduates from having a means of communication with the outside world. As a direct result of this, an entire generation of Libyan people lacked much-needed international communication skills (Braun and Jones, 2013: 70). This was considered one of the main challenges of English language education in general, and IHE in Libya in particular. Gadour (2006: 180) indicated that “the Libyan students who graduated during the time when English was not being taught are still limited in their ability to take advantage of existing opportunities with western countries, such as work opportunities at foreign companies.” In the same vein, challenges and problems with English language have been one crucial barrier within the areas of globalization, IHE, and when using ICT because of students’ relatively low level of English language. On the other hand, efforts are lately being made to improve the English language skills of Libyan students, with programs for the use of English as a principal language of instruction at universities and in schools. One such effort is the support received from the British Cultural Council in Libya. Libya’s Ministry of Education and the British Cultural Council signed a contract on May 30, 2007 to teach English at Libyan public universities in nine specialized centers. Libyan universities will be equipped with the necessary equipment and libraries, while the British Council will provide the curricula and teaching staff. According to the Libyan Ministry of Education, the total amount involved in this contract is 4,920,632 Libyan Dinars (Ministry of Education, 2007: 55).

Mobility of Students Nilsson (2000) stated that the mobility of students as the most common feature of internationalization abroad is the only or at least the best way to internationalize higher education. In this context, the Libyan government is offering many Libyan students the opportunity to continue their studies abroad and to gain internationally recognized qualifications. This has opened the possibility for Libyan students and academic staff to study and take training outside Libya. This also applies to the increasing internationalization of research and the increase in the number of foreign students in Libya since 2007. In 2008, 8,000 Libyan students were studying abroad, about half of them at the PhD level. Abodher and Hardaker (2010: 15), citing the report issued by the General People’s Committee for Higher Education in 2010, propose that during the academic year of 2008/2009, there were 10,675 students studying outside Libya in more than 45 countries, with 4,350 taking doctorates and 5,103 master’s, 627 students doing specialized studies, and 595 undergraduate studies (General People’s Committee, 2008). Table 22.5 shows the number of Libyan students who were studying abroad in 2009.

358

TABLE 22.5 Number of Libyan students studying abroad at the state’s expense (2009) State

PhD

Master’s

Undergraduate

Total

State

PhD

Master’s

Undergraduate

Total

Spain Australia United States Italy Jordan UAE Brazil Portugal Algeria Sudan Sweden China Philippines Germany Hungary Morocco Austria India Japan Greece Ukraine Ireland UK Belgium

2 99 635 19 41 0 0 1 4 68 14 13 0 129 6 73 3 17 1 2 3 13 1270 6

1 76 819 12 20 0 0 0 0 6 1 9 1 148 0 25 5 21 0 0 4 2 1294 1

0 0 14 0 11 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 4 0 0 0 13 0 268 1

4 177 1517 34 72 1 1 1 6 74 19 22 1 442 7 100 12 38 1 2 20 16 2888 8

Bulgaria Burkina Faso Poland Turkey Czech Republic Tanzania Tunisia South Africa Russia Belarus Slovakia Syria Switzerland Serbia France Venezuela Finland Canada Lebanon Malta Malaysia Egypt Nigeria Holland

2 4 9 12 23 3 33 5 2 35 23 195 1 93 144 2 1 121 7 2 432 777 1 0

0 0 3 14 4 1 6 6 1 1 6 13 8 22 56 0 0 106 1 2 505 639 2 0

0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 4 0 0 17 0 2 39 69 0 1

2 4 13 28 29 4 41 15 3 37 30 209 12 117 209 2 1 322 8 6 989 1489 3 1

Source: National Centre for Education Planning and Training (2009).

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION IN LIBYA

359

It can be seen from Table 22.5 that the United Kingdom has the highest number of Libyan students, followed by the United States of America. These countries are popular choices, as many Libyan students already have some knowledge of the English language, which facilitates their studies there. According to the Libyan Audit Bureau, the highest financial regulatory authority in the country, “during (2016–2017) the number of students from Libyan universities who study overseas was 7666 students, and in fiscal year 2017, the student finance for study abroad was 496,547,587 Libyan Dinar” (Libyan Audit Bureau, 2017: 704).

International Collaboration One of the most important benefits of IHE in Libya is that it offers more and better opportunities for local universities to twin and relate with other European universities. As shown in Table 22.6, many Libyan universities have signed international agreements for scientific and technological cooperation with other top European universities. These agreements are contributing to stability in Libyan higher education institutions, allowing them to increase new information flows. Building the twinning relationships between Libyan universities and many other European universities has clear educational benefits for both the Libyan higher education institutions and overseas countries. For instance, the twinning relationships have led to acquiring a wide range of partnerships for teaching, knowledge transfer, and research in over twenty Libyan universities that have equally benefited from the links. These universities organize annual visits to European universities, and language courses for their students. Moreover, twinning has been useful in organizing scientific conferences, and workshops which led to raising the rank of Libyan universities. The National Centre for Education Planning and Training (2010: 112) reported that “higher education in Libya aims to enhance the level and quality of education, expand graduate programs in Libya, take advantage of scholarship abroad and increase interest in libraries, and other sources of information, as well as promoting encourage the translation of many educational resources.” According to the Ministry of Education in Libya (2017), cooperation was forged between the European Union and Libyan universities through six projects running with total funding of €143,000. These projects started in the 2015–2016 academic year and aimed to plan thirty-two mobility flows to Europe. Three Libyan Universities (Misurata, Tripoli, and Zawia) were involved in the scheme with their European partners. These six projects included short-term academic mobility programs for students (three to twelve months) and staff (five to sixty days), and long-term programs for all levels of education, namely bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral, which are fully funded. Additionally, according to the Ministry of Education

TABLE 22.6 Table of agreements between Libyan universities and European universities N

Libyan universities

European universities

Countries

Twinning dates

1 2 3 4

Al -Zintan University University of Tobruk Elmergib University Misurata University

University of Lodz University of Poitiers University of Alicante University of Genova

Poland France Spain Italy

December 16, 2017 November 1, 2019 June 27, 2019 October 22, 2017

Source: The Ministry of Education (2019).

360

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

(2017), another six projects were initiated in 2017 with a budget of €157,858, and fiftytwo available mobility flows. All these projects are, in fact, supporting and paving the way for a brighter future of higher education in Libya, with modern ways and developments being introduced to Libyan students as well as the staff in Libyan universities. The Libyan Centre for Quality Assurance and Accreditation (CQAA) signed a cooperation agreement, in November 2019, with the British Centre for Professional Qualifications. This agreement will open new horizons in educational cooperation between the Libyan state and the UK. According to this agreement, the United Kingdom will help and support the Libyan higher education system through opening the horizons of cooperation, transferring knowledge, exchanging experiences, and training of Libyan cadres.

CONCLUSION Higher education in developing and developed countries is becoming increasingly important and is being considered as the cornerstone of economic and social development. The Libyan government has started to work harder on expanding, developing, and improving its higher education system to keep up with the rapid changes occurring worldwide (Al-Badri, 2012: 55). Both “internationalization” and “globalization” are frequently used for a wide variety of different aspects that concern Libya’s higher education, and affect it in many different ways. Globalization and internationalization are considered two of the forces that have most changed the higher education system in Libya, especially over the last ten years. Globalization and IHE in Libya have had an effect through expanding the use, acceptance, and adoption of the new ICT tools on Libyan higher education institutions. IHE in Libya offers more and better opportunities for local universities to twin and relate with other European Universities. The increase in the number of foreign students in Libya since 2007 is a clear evidence of increasing IHE in Libya. The results of this chapter may be of great importance for Libyan policymakers in the higher education sector, if they wish to develop better policies that will support the internationalization process within the Libyan higher education system. However, in order to allow the Libyan higher education sector to benefit from globalization and IHE, more focus should be given to solving current challenges and improving the quality and quantity of higher education, rather than only on acquiring knowledge through study or instruction availed as a result of the globalization and internationalization processes described.

REFERENCES Abodher, S. (2014). The extent of information communication technology use in the University of Tripoli, Libya. British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 4 (11): 1536–1556. Abodher, S. (2013). Impacts of globalization and awareness of higher education policy in adoption and use of ICT in Libyan Universities, PhD thesis, University of Huddersfield. Abodher, S., and Hardaker, G. (2010). The impact of globalization and information communication technologies (ICT) on new higher education policy reform NHEPR (2008–2012) in Libya. Working paper. University of Huddersfield. Abodher, S. (2014). Impacts of globalization and education policy in use of ICT in Libya. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION IN LIBYA

361

Al-Badri, A.M. (2012). Some problems of higher education policies. Paper presented in the First National Conference on Public Policies in Libya. Garyounis University, Benghazi, Libya, June 12–14, 2007, 30 pages (Arabic text). Al-Fathly, M.A., and Ibrahim, A.M. (2008). Higher education and future challenge in Libya: An analytical and critical prospective. Garyounis Scientific Journal, 10: 187–211 (Arabic text). Al-Sudairy, H.T. (2007). The effects and influential factors of globalization on the Saudi higher educational system. Selected proceedings, Regional Research Seminar, Rabat, Morocco, May 25–26, 2007. Alam, M., Haque, M.S., and Siddique, S.F. (2007). Private higher education in Bangladesh, International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris. Available online: https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000150151 (accessed November 18, 2019). Altbach, P.G. (2007). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world. In Forest, J.J.F., and Altbach, P.G. (eds), International Handbook of Higher Education. Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 121–39. Alzain, A.M., Clark, S., and Ireson, G. (2014). Libyan Higher Education system, challenges and achievements. Engineering Education (ICEED), 2014 IEEE 6th Conference, pp. 67–72. Available online: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article. php?story=20090402214437752 (accessed November 11, 2019). Avgerou, C., and Berleur, J. (2005). Perspectives and Policies on ICT in Society. New York, NY: Springer. Bacchus, M.K. (2008). The education challenges facing small nation states in the increasingly competitive global economy of the twenty-first century. Comparative Education, 44(2): 127–145. Boyle, F.A. (2013). Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade U.S. Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution. Atlanta: Clarity Press. Braun, D.G., and Jones, D.A. (2013). Libya—Building the Future with Youth Challenges for Education and Employability. Eschborn, Tripoli: Deutsche Gesell schaft für Internationale Zusammen arbeit (GIZ) Gmbh. CIA, World Factbook (2019). Report on Libya. Available online: http://www.theodora.com/ wfbcurrent/libya/libya_geography.html (accessed October 29, 2019). Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dicken, P. (2003). Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century, 4th ed. London: Sage. El-Hawat, A. (2002). Arab and Globalization: Present Sorrow and Future Ambiguity. Cairo: Madbooly Publishing (Arabic text). Elabbar, A. (2016). Libyan Political conflict: Effects on higher education development. Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ), 4(12). Friedman, T.L. (2005). The World Is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gadour, A. (2006). Libyan children’s views on the importance of school factors which contributed to their emotional and behavioural difficulties. School Psychology International, 27(2): 171–191. GAIT, The General Authority for Information and Telecommunication (2010). The summary of the preliminary results of the general census of population and the other accompanying census, 2010 (Arabic text). Grunzweig, W., and Rinehant N. (2003). Rockin in Red Square. Critical Approaches to International Education in the Age of Cyberculture. Germany: Lit Verlag. Harman, G. (2004). New directions in internationalizing higher education: Australia’s development as an exporter of higher education services. Higher Education Policy, 17: 101–120.

362

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

International Association of Universities IAU (2009). Structure of educational system: Admissions to higher education recognition of Foreign Credentials. Available online: http:// www.iau-aiu.net/ (accessed December 2, 2019). Islam, M.S., and Islam, M.N. (2007). Use of ICT in libraries: An empirical study of selected libraries in Bangladesh, Library Philosophy and Practice. Available online: http://tojde. anadolu.edu.tr/tojde21/articles/islam.htm (accessed November 8, 2019. Janczyk-Strzała, E., and Tomaszewski J. (2013). Aspects of internationalization of higher education institutions in Poland. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 13(4): 67–73. Jomana, K., and Ashley, F. (2014), Turmoil in Libya: Fighting sweeps across Tripoli following violence in Benghazi. CNN. Available online: https://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/18/world/ africa/libya-violence/ (accessed November 20, 2019). Kehm, B. (2011). Forschung zu Fragen der Internationalisierung von Hochschulen im Kontext des Bologna-Prozesses. In Leszczensky, M., and Barthelmes, T. (eds), Herausforderung Internationalisierung: Die Hochschulen auf dem Weg zum Europäischen Hochschulraum. Hannover: HIS GmbH, pp. 11–24. Knight, J. (1999). Issues and trends in internationalization: A comparative perspective. In Bond, S., Lemasson, J.P., and International Development Research Centre (Canada) (eds), A New World of Knowledge: Canadian Universities and Globalization. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, rationales and approaches. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil. The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Libya—Telecoms, Mobile and Broadband—Statistics and Analyses (2013). Libya’s telecom sector growth requiring political stability. Available online: http://www.budde.com.au/Research/ LibyaTelecoms-Mobile-andBroadband.html#sthash.6IaCgc8N.dpuf (accessed November 21, 2019). Libyan Audit Bureau (2017). Yearly Report, 2017. Tripoli. Available online: http://audit.gov.ly/ home/pdf/LABR-2017.pdf (accessed December 1, 2019) (Arabic text). Lutabingwa, J.L. (2005). Internationalization at South African Universities: The Role of a Central International Office. Pretoria: Unisa Press. Merriam-Webster (2019). Definition of “globalization.” Available online: https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/globalization (accessed November 7, 2019). Ministry of Education (2007). Annual Report (Arabic text). Ministry of Education (2010). Annual Report (Arabic text). Ministry of Education (2019). Annual Report (Arabic text). Ministry of Education (2019). Annual Report (Arabic text). Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (2017). Annual Report (Arabic text). National Centre for Education Planning and Training (2010). General People’s Committee of Education, Libya, Tripoli (Arabic text). Nilsson, B. (2000). Internationalizing the curriculum. In Crowthere, P. et al. (eds), Internationalization at Home: A Position Paper. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education, pp. 21–27. Oyewole, O. (2009). Internationalization and its implications for the quality of higher education in Africa. Higher Education Policy, 22(3): 319–329. Pipia, E. (2017). The impact of globalization and internationalization on education in Georgia. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(5). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2964198

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION IN LIBYA

363

Sawahel. W. (2009). Saudi Arabia: 25-year plan for higher education. University World News, September 6. Available at: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20090903215333517 Scholte, J. (2000). Globalization: A Critical Introduction. London: Macmillan. Shahbaz, M., Mallick, H., Mahalik, M.K., and Hammoudeh, S. (2018). Is globalization detrimental to financial development? Further evidence from a very large emerging economy with a significant orientation towards policies. Applied Economics, 50, 574–595. Tamrat, W. and Teferra, D. (2018). Internationalization of Ethiopian higher education institutions: Manifestations of a nascent system. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(5). The Libyan National Planning Council (2010). Unpublished report (Arabic text). Van der Wende, M. (1997). Missing links: The relationship between national policies for internationalization and those for higher education in general. In Kalvermark, T. and Van der Wende, M. (eds), National Policies for the Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe. Stockholm, Sweden: Hogskoleverket Studies, National Agency for Higher Education. Vercˇicˇ, D., Zerfass A., and Wiesenberg, M. (2015). Global public relations and communication management: A European perspective. Public Relations Review, 41(5): 785–793.

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

Internationalization of Higher Education in Morocco Current Processes, Practices, and Challenges ABDELLAH BENAHNIA

INTRODUCTION As a North-African Islamic developing nation, Morocco long maintained its business and educational ties with different foreign states and countries. It also maintained its deeply rooted traditional means of education alongside the adapted modern European style education that spread throughout the country after its independence in 1956. Since then, many educational reform changes have occurred, including those concerning higher education and the phenomenon of Internationalization of Higher Education (IHE). Given that reality, this chapter will shed some light on the current processes, practices, and challenges facing IHE in Morocco, given the fact that there are real concerns regarding the inherent tensions between the foreign education providers (mainly American, British, Canadian, and others) and the local cultural setting and conservative vs. liberal political parties, as well as challenges pertaining to the issue of the diverse local and national culture, linguistic variety, identity, and gender. Given those persisting facts, it is very hard to speculate, for sure, the success or failure of adopting IHE in the future horizon of this developing country. Also, by virtue of its superb geographic location connecting Europe and Africa, its deeply rooted monarchical political system, and its great desire and aspiration for development and prosperity at all levels, Morocco is striving to adopt the phenomenon of Internationalization of Higher Education (IHE), which might later have an aspect of Transnational Education (TNE) disseminating further educational services to the rest of the other African countries (Benahnia, 2015). Morocco is in fact witnessing many changes at all levels starting with its basic infrastructure, economy, and social life, in addition to the development of the four levels of its educational system i.e., primary, elementary, secondary, and higher education. The rapid spread, and flourishing, of many foreign educational institutions, products, and activities is becoming noticeable.

364

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO

365

This chapter overall is about IHE in Morocco. However, it will neither deal with the processes or rules and regulations governing the establishment of the entire international institutions, nor will it dwell on the sub-technical parts of its application and provision. The main issues addressed in this context shall include, to an extent, the motives and drivers supporting the internationalization of higher education engagement at different levels (political, economic, and religious); strategic approaches to internationalization and transnational education with the different modes of delivery (including distance and online education), and Morocco’s dominant foreign higher education providers: mainly British, American, and Canadian. There will also be reference to the existing issues and obstacles related to international partnerships for delivery in Morocco; and whether Morocco will be able to export, or at least be an intermediary of, transnational education providers and partners for the rest of the African states and countries. It will also reflect and reveal some of the hidden obstacles and challenges facing IHE, not only in Morocco, but in the MENA region as a whole. Social barriers such as poverty, dissatisfaction, and illiteracy, as well as religious and political orientation and belief, will also be addressed.

THE IMPACT OF THE POLITICAL SETTING ON IHE Morocco (the full Arabic name of which is al-Mamlaka al-Ma˙g ribiyya, translated as “The Western Kingdom”), which had been under the French Protectorate since 1912, gained its independence, as previously mentioned, in 1956. Even long before that, Morocco had always been an Islamic state with a Royal Monarchy (i.e., for more than 1,200 years). Laila Beghi (2011) states that “The Moroccan monarch is invested with the power of the divine will in his capacity as the Commander of the Faithful. He maintains both a temporal and a religious status as the political leader of a community of believers” (cited in Benahnia, 1996). As far as international politics and international relations are concerned, Morocco is often regarded as a stable country, just at the gate of the European region, and as a country that plays a fundamental role in the Arab World as well as the international community (Benahnia, 1996). Being at the gate of Europe, Morocco is a crucial member of the Mediterranean area and of its economic community and gathering. As such, it remains a valuable client and ally to the European Union (EU). Morocco started political and economic reforms way before the Arab Spring Movement, i.e., when King Mohammed VI reigned in Morocco in 1998. Those reforms also concerned the encouraging of Internationalization of Higher Education. In 2017, Saad Eddine Al Othmani (as current Prime Minister) was asked by the King to make radical changes in the government in late 2019 to eradicate poverty, unemployment, and to improve services in major sectors, which involved the hiring of highly qualified individuals to key positions (Al Masmoudi, 2019). The main tasks of the newly formed government (which includes—for the first time—six technocrats) is to ensure the replacement of senior responsible figures in key positions by highly qualified young ones, to reduce the percentage of unemployment, to improve quality service and administration, to improve healthcare services and patient satisfaction and education, and to work for the betterment of vocational training, IHE and tertiary education in general. Choice of the medium of instruction as well as the setting of major policies, rules, and regulations related to education in general, and IHE in particular, are often subject to long and exhausting debates at all levels (including parliament open debates). Political parties as well as civil associations heavily contribute to those debates (Benahnia, 2019).

366

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Also, let us not forget that as far as gender is concerned, women play a crucial role in the development of all political aspects in the county and, unlike in many of the Arab countries, Morocco’s newly revamped government in 2019 includes four female ministers, and is constantly relying on the fundamental contribution and role of women in its various sectors and key positions, mainly in education.

LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN RELATION TO IHE In order to best understand the setting within which IHE is taking place in Morocco, as stated above, it is vital to note that Morocco is well known for its linguistic and cultural richness and diversity, which has a great impact on the orientation of education in the country. The total population of Morocco consists of different ethnic groups. Most Moroccans are Sunni Muslims, mainly of Arab-Berber, Arabized-Berber or Berberstock. Morocco was inhabited by Berbers at least 5,000 years ago. Morocco’s Jewish minority has decreased significantly and today numbers about 5,000. Most of the 100,000 foreign residents are French or Spanish (Benahnia, 2015). According to CIA (2012), the total population of Morocco is 32,309,239 (July 2012 est.) and the ethnic distribution is as follows: ●

Muslim 98.7 percent

●

Christian 1.1 percent

●

Jewish 0.2 percent (cited in Benahnia, 2015).

This linguistic variety consists mainly of Arabic, and the Berber language (or Amazigh language), in its four major dialects. Although Classical (or Standard) Arabic and Amazigh are today considered Morocco’s official languages, the Classical Arabic of the Holly Qur’an is widely used in literature and news media, while the use of the Berber or Amazigh script, known as Tifinagh remains very limited. Morocco, as a whole, is a country that has a distinctive dialect of Arabic known as Moroccan Arabic or Darija (which is a first language (L1) for those who are not Berber speakers). This version of Arabic dialect is very similar to the one used in Algeria and to some extent in Tunisia and Libya. However, the dialect used in Algeria remains the closest to the Moroccan dialect as it is the neighboring country of Morocco, sharing geographic borders and traditions. Moreover, this version of Arabic remains difficult to be quickly understood by other Arabs coming from the Middle East or elsewhere, while it is easily acquired by other learners. Besides Arabic and Berber, French is widely used as L2 or L3 (second or third language), and the Berber (in its diverse variations such as Tashlhit, Tamazight, Zayaniyah, Tarifit, in addition to Al Hassaniya (in the Moroccan Sahara region) is used by non-Arab of Berber origins. (For further information regarding the distribution of those varieties, see for example, Benahnia, 1992.) As far as culture is concerned, Morocco remains a unique country combining Muslim, Christian, and Jewish heritage. Beautiful mosques, both traditional and modern, are scattered all over the country, both in cities and rural areas, alongside churches from the era when Morocco was under the French Protectorate, while old Jewish Synagogues and Mellah (Jewish districts or quartiers) still exist in most large cities, venues for the peace, harmony, and co-existence of Moroccan citizens of old times and nowadays. In addition, Morocco is a real mosaic of its multicolor diverse kinds of folklore heritage and traditions,

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO

367

combining Arab and Berber customs, songs and music, dance, drama, and prose and poetic literary works. Therefore, a large segment of the Moroccan society and population holds tightly to their traditions and customs, yet they still have room for embracing other aspects of Western cultural elements and lifestyle. The aforementioned shows that any internationalization process and delivery of higher education in Morocco must take into consideration the ethnic, linguistic, and cultural background and heritage of its clients and learners as these play a crucial role in the choice of schooling as well as the majors that both parents and students will decide on.

A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO Since 1912, Morocco has undergone major reform changes regarding its educational policies and system (for more details, see, for example, Benahnia, 1996). Long before the French protectorate period (i.e., before 1912), education was heavily based on the Islamic teachings derived from the Holy Book of Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), the Sunnah, in addition to some scientific and linguistic majors. Teaching and learning of foreign languages was almost nonexistent. It was not until 1963 (soon after the independence in 1956) that education was made compulsory for all Moroccan children between the ages of six and thirteen both in cities, villages, small towns, and in rural areas. Newly independent Moroccan citizens started to feel and believe that modern schooling was indeed a vehicle for better jobs, security, self-development, and prosperity (Benahnia, 1996). The current educational system consists of primary, elementary, and secondary, with a higher education system that involves scientific and humanities tracks, in addition to vocational tracks. French is the medium of instruction in most higher education scientific majors, while Arabic is used in many humanities and literary majors. The most recent components of the higher education system consist of three major sectors: ●

General higher education

●

Higher education in partnership

●

Private higher education.

General higher education comprises universities: These are public institutions under the tutelage of the Ministry of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Training. The Kingdom currently includes twelve public universities, which are with a special measure distributed across the country (Supreme Education Council, 2016). Non-University Higher Education Institutions are specialized educational institutions subject to the administrative and financial guardianship of the technical ministries, under the pedagogical tutelage of the Ministry of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Training. The universities and institutions created under the partnership are not-for-profit institutions, created within the framework of the internationalization of Moroccan higher education. Private higher education includes universities and institutions created by private initiatives but subject to the pedagogical authority of the Ministry of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Training (Ministry of Education, 2017). In one of his latest speeches to the Moroccan people and government officials on July 30, 2019, King Mohammed IV insisted that the development and expansion of the

368

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

vocational training sector is becoming a must, and should be placed as top priority within the educational reform plan. This plan is referred to by the government as the “Strategic Vision for Education Reform 2015–2030” (Ministry of Education, n.d.). This, according to the same speech of the King (July 30, 2019), will elevate the standards of competencies and provide the labor market with skilled and professional manpower. Hence, more vocational centers will be created and huge funds will be allocated to this process within the next budget plans. Unlike studying at universities, short-term training in those vocational centers seems to be beneficial and helpful to many families in the poor and middle classes as their children may soon find a job and start helping their parents and family (Ministry of Education, n.d.). It is also worth mentioning that The Ministry of National Education, Vocational Training, Higher Education and Scientific Research has granted state recognition to some of the universities and private institutions created within the framework of their partnership. The online newspaper, Al Ahdath Info (2017) stated that the process, according to a communication to the Ministry, concerns the Private University of Marrakech-Tensift-El Haouz, the Mohammed VI University of Health Sciences, the Zahraoui International University of Health Sciences, the International University of Casablanca, the International Private University of Agadir, the Higher School of Architecture of Casablanca, the School of Business Administration and the Central School of Casablanca. The communication also specified that the State’s recognition of private higher education institutions, as stipulated in Law No. 01.00 on the organization of higher education, issued in 2000, is testimony to the high level of the quality of the formations taught in these institutions, pointing out that the certificates of these institutions recognized by the State accept the equivalence of certificates issued nationally. The State’s recognition of private higher education institutions, according to the same source, represents a “historic shift for this sector,” where the Ministry has created a new dynamic in the private higher education sector through the issuance of a series of regulatory texts on the recognition of these institutions by the State. Such recognition shall be granted by decree proposed by the governmental authority in charge of higher education after consulting the National Committee for Higher Education Coordination. Enrollment at those universities, as the only currently existing partners of higher education institutions in Morocco that grant a degree or an educational certificate, places its graduates in a privileged position in the global marketplace (Al Ahdath Info, 2017). It is probably worthwhile to go over a brief overview of the political, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds in order to better understand the setting within which the phenomenon of higher education is taking place.

IHE POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND PRACTICES The strategies and structure of higher or tertiary education have undergone many changes and challenges since the independence period. Policies regulating the processes of this field went through several stages of debates and discussions within the Ministry of education and the parliament (Al Masmoudi, 2019). The higher education system consists of both private and public institutes. The country nowadays has fourteen major public universities, including Mohammed V University in Rabat, Karaouine University in Fes, and Cadi Ayyad University in Marrakesh (as pioneer universities in Morocco), along with specialist schools, such as the music conservatories of Morocco supported by the Ministry of Culture. However, there are a couple of national and international private universities,

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO

369

such as SIST British University, which work with the public universities to improve higher education in Morocco. Those few private universities are located in major cities of Morocco such as: ●

IIHEM—International Institute for Higher Education in Morocco, Rabat

●

Marrakesh Tensift El Haouz, Marrakesh

●

Mundiapolis Université Privée, Casablanca

●

Private International Institute of Management and Technology, Rabat, Casablanca, Marrakesh

●

SIST—British University, Rabat, Casablanca, Tangier

●

Universiapolis—Université Internationale d’Agadir, Agadir

●

Université Internationale de Casablanca, Casablanca

●

Université Privée de Fès (UPF), Fez

●

Université Polythechnic de Benguerir, Benguerir (Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, n.d.).

Moreover, international universities in Morocco have an independent structure at the educational level, as well as at the scientific, cultural, administrative, and financial levels. The government exercises control only through regulators at the level of trusteeship; its academic objective is to meet the requirements of internationalization in terms of professional and cognitive activity, while choosing a partnership approach by establishing many foreign higher institutions. The main pillars of these partnerships are the exchange of students, professors, and researchers as well as the establishment of study and research programs related to areas of common interest. Furthermore, the reform of the LMD (bachelor’s, master’s, PhD) was part of this framework, benefiting from the transfer of knowledge and spreading the spirit of excellence in Morocco. It is also necessary to mention here that Rabat International University (UIR) is one of the most important international universities in Morocco, especially as its branches are accredited by the Moroccan state. Within this framework, the Moroccan government allowed UIR to use the “private university” brand, among other characteristics, to recognize UIR certificates in the same way as obtaining national diplomas. This is also the case with the International University of Casablanca, and the University of Agadir known as ISIAM (Higher Institute of Applied Informatics and Management), established in 1989 in collaboration with the University of Quebec and supported by the CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). Thus, ISIAM is the first international university in Morocco (Addirassa, n.d.). As far as enrollment in higher education is concerned, we can say that the percentage is still low in comparison with the actual population growth rate. For example, the total number of graduates at the tertiary level in 2007 was 88,137: the gross enrollment rate at the tertiary level is 11 percent and it has not fluctuated significantly in the past few years (Addirassa, n.d.). Admission to public universities requires only a baccalaureate, whereas admission to other higher public education institutes, such as engineering schools, requires competitive special tests and special training as a prerequisite to the entrance exams. Perhaps one of the major reasons that draws the attention of Moroccan youngsters and parents to international universities and institutions in Morocco is the implementation of technology and modern communication devices and equipment. Also, it seems that the effect of globalization and the consideration of the world as a village, through the extensive use of technology and media to connect to others, is to a great extent a driving

370

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

force in getting clients for those schools and educational institutions. In addition, modern facilities and laboratories, strong curricula, along with a wide variety of cultural excursions, sports, and social activities, availability of and accessibility to up-to-date technological instruments and devices, good reputation of the school, using English as a medium of instruction, and a clean and safe environment for students and staff are some of the key elements that bring success to those foreign schools and institutions (see Benahnia, 2019). The utilization of modern technology in this field is probably a tool that would help in the eradication of illiteracy in Morocco. Since its independence in 1956, the government of Morocco has launched a revolution against illiteracy and has begun to implement political and educational comprehensive reforms as well as to create technical vocational training programs and centers. Needless to say, the introduction of modern schools, based on the French system, was a true revolution and challenge to the long existing Qur’anic traditional schools. Also, it is indeed worth mentioning here that Morocco holds the oldest continuously operating university in the world, The Karaouine University, in the old city Fes, which has been teaching since 859, i.e., more than 1,000 years ago, founded by a woman called Fatimah Al Fihriya. The teaching/learning major method followed by the Karaouine University then was known as halaqah (circle), in which students, sitting on the ground, used to form circles along with their teachers. Those circles would spread all across the university, which looked like a huge mosque with several facilities (for further insights, see Benahnia, 1996). Even though Morocco was facing tremendous economic challenges and difficulties in the 1990s and early 2000s, the government continued its concerted efforts to improve the overall educational landscape. Thus, many new universities and higher educational institutions were established. The number of students has been rising since the year of independence (1956). Moreover, since the early 2000s the gross enrollment rates have been rising steadily for all levels of education. Completion rates at the primary level have increased from 57.8 percent in 2004 to 61.7 percent in 2006. In 2006 the expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP was 5.5 percent, higher than the education expenditure as a percent of GDP for Arab countries such as Oman, Kuwait, and Egypt (Benahnia, 2015). Despite the above mentioned efforts to improve education, Morocco is ranked 130th in the Human Development Index (HDI). It had an adult literacy rate of 52 percent in 2004. Although education completion and enrollment rates have improved, the possibility of achieving the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) for Morocco is still uncertain. IHE falls under the supervision of the Ministry of Education and mainly the division of the Secretary of State for Higher Education and Scientific Research. All international universities and higher institutions are working the norms, rules, and regulations of this ministry. None of these institutions is to operate without official agreement regarding its partnership, stakeholders, and approval of its programs and curricula (Ministry of Education, 2017). Moreover, the majority of courses and programs provided by those instructions and universities tend to be in scientific, technical, or management and business majors with the goal of meeting the needs of the immediate labor demand of society. These universities and higher institutions hire teachers from overseas, yet they still hire a considerable number of Moroccan teachers and administrative staff. The majority of those institutions also offer certificates or diplomas bearing the name of foreign universities.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO

371

RESEARCH AND FUNDING ISSUES: HOW CAN IHE CONTRIBUTE? The importance of scientific research, in relation to IHE and tertiary education in general, is that it is the correct response to the desired reform to the education system after a radical reform of the public school and the modernization of all curricula and universities’ and schools’ facilities and internal and external environments (Ren, Karafyllis, Hohlt, and Taube, 2015). For the economic, industrial, social, and cultural development of society, it is vital to look seriously at the issue of research. In this regard, researcher Amjad Qassem (2010) stated in the Al-Faisal Scientific Journal, for example, that scientific research is “the effective and fundamental engine of progress and development in all societies and for all sectors of the state (economic, political, military, social, educational, and cultural). Science and technology cannot flourish in any society without building a strong and effective base for scientific research activities to advance development.” That being the case, it can be said that scientific research is the real criterion or separation between developed countries and underdeveloped ones. Moreover, Dr. John Dickinson, a UNESCO expert, defines scientific research as “a rigorous, robust and comprehensive survey aimed at finding new facts that will help put new hypotheses to the test, or review recognized results” (cited in Qassem, 2010). Macmillan and Schumacher, according to the same source, see scientific research as “a systematic process of collecting and analyzing data or information for a particular purpose,” while Tuchman argues that the concept of scientific research is “a systematic attempt to find answers or solutions to questions or problems facing individuals or groups in their positions and walks of life.” Another researcher, Dr. Sidi Mahmoud Ould Mohamed—from Mauritania—defines scientific research as “a means of access to the relative truth, and the discovery of phenomena and the degree of correlation among them, in various fields of knowledge, and that scientific research is not limited to the secrets of matter and the universe surrounding us, but includes Daily Events of Human Life” (cited in Qassem, 2010). On the other hand, it is hard to speculate the future of scientific research in the horizon of the reform project and in relation to IHE in Morocco. In fact, if we look closer at the race of nations in the fields of knowledge, and the investment of large funds in building their own system of research, knowledge, and technology, in comparison with what is allocated to research in the budget of Morocco as well as in the budgets of international institutions and universities, we can understand the intensity of the problem. Other countries have created competitive and rewarding procedures to encourage researchers to reach high standards in modern scientific research achievements, and for that purpose, they have created local and international awards celebrations and gatherings for excellence in this field, for the best proof of the recognition. The undeniable truth, then, is that most nations have started to firmly believe that there is no way to progress, grow, and prosper without taking scientific research as the portal of progress, and facilitate its venues and procedures for present and future generations (Benahnia, 2017). Thus, nations are starting to realize that their pride in their natural wealth may soon vanish, and that the continuity and survival is for the strongest; that is, for the advancement in the fields of science, knowledge, and technology. Regrettably, Morocco is still unable to seriously and actively participate in these cognitive and technical research achievements, i.e., still unable to come up with a real revolution in the world of research and academia that might benefit its generations and the rest of the world.

372

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Moreover, it can be said that in the 1970s, joint Arab action was launched to promote Arab scientific policy, and several conferences were held in different regions, despite the efforts to formulate policies and develop strategic and other plans that strengthen the bonds of cooperation between Arab countries and aim to promote scientific research. However, these policies have often led to the creation of marginal jobs that do not cover the requirements of the labor market and do not meet or achieve the desired goals. To address this, more meetings and conferences were held, such as the Conference of Ministers. Arabs responsible for scientific research and heads of Arab scientific councils held in Baghdad in 1974, and the conference of Arab ministers responsible for the development of science and technology in Rabat in 1976, had called for attendees at both conferences to acknowledge the need for joint Arab action, and the establishment of specialized quality centers at the level of the Arab world (see for example the article in Arabic entitled: “Scientific research . . . The potential gap and the absence of strategy behind the delay of the Arabs,” published in the Al Bayan newspaper, March 15, 2014). Moreover, these gatherings resulted in a number of recommendations addressed to Arab governments and other recommendations to Arab organizations concerned with supporting culture and science. In spite of all the initial gatherings and others that have followed over the last few decades, and despite those efforts aimed at unity and strengthening cooperation and formulating policies aimed at raising the level of scientific research in the Arab countries, these policies have often led to the emergence of marginal functions that do not live up to the aspirations of the Arab societies, or the bulk of their people. They do not meet or achieve the objectives set out in those conferences and recommendations. Strangely enough, these countries (including Morocco) did not learn or benefit from repeated failures, and did not grasp the lesson to address those related issues. If we look at the case of Morocco, in particular, we can see that a lot of money was spent on studies and led to more expensive additional meetings that in turn led to the accumulation of the results and views, and piles of papers and documents that were not utilized properly, resulting in the loss of efforts, money, and time to keep scientific research viewed from a narrow angle which does not meet the purpose. According to World Bank data on development indicators in 2003, for example, and according to researcher Amjad Qassem, the total expenditure of Arab countries to support scientific research is negligible, the share of expenditure on research and development of the gross national product in Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the United Arab Emirates respectively: 0.3 percent, 0.26 percent, 0.2 percent, 0.18 percent, 0.45 percent, while Sweden spent 3.02 percent of its GDP, Japan, 2.84 percent, Switzerland 2.68 percent, South Korea 2.47 percent, USA 2.8 percent, France 2.34 percent. —cited in Benahnia, 2017 Furthermore, the budget allocated for scientific research in Morocco is “still below the level of ambitions.” It currently does not exceed 0.8 percent of GDP, as stated by Soumia Benkhaldoun, the ex-Minister delegate to the Minister of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Training (Hespress, 2014). The small number of scientists and researchers, and their production in the Arab world, shows a clear defect in the educational and development policies in Morocco and other Arab countries, as well as the terrible shortage in institutions related to Arab scientific research and lack of accurate calculations of the returns of some scientific activities carried out in their institutions. This shortcoming can be seen at a glance at what

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO

373

Arab countries spend on their national returns on scientific research: For example, countries spend less than 0.3 percent of their GNP on research and development. Based on the above mentioned facts and others, the newly reformed government of Morocco (in October 2019) should reconsider the concept and procedures of scientific research as a vehicle for economic, social, and cultural growth. The laws and procedures of research and development activities created and regulated under the umbrella of industrial bodies and institutions and justified by science and technology policies should be reviewed. These activities make their role very limited, and as a result insufficient attention is paid to the outcomes and results of scientific research and development in higher educational institutions. That is why Morocco has been keen since the beginning of the last century to have a national policy for the advancement of science and technology through the education system, and the competent authorities in the country enacted a wide range of legislative and executive measures aimed at activating the national scientific energies and mobilized to achieve strategic development plans throughout Morocco and in all regions. Without exception, some money (not enough, though) has been allocated to achieve this goal, and Morocco continues to keep pace with a series of reforms and major workshops, making many Arab and African countries aspire to its political and economic model. Morocco also hopes that the outcomes of the public school, universities, and higher schools including IHE will be of high quality, and be strengthened by its strategic plans with regard to scientific research, because the latter is primarily an investment and a successful economic option, reflecting a promising future economic vision. This vision embraces all sectors within society as they constitute rings of a chain that are interconnected, and the strength of any chain is determined by the weakest link. It is this comprehensive vision that Morocco seeks to achieve through its recently adopted reform projects, which have been the first to take the initiative in different fields and sectors. However, the most difficult aspect of these reform workshops is the reform of the education system, of which scientific research is an essential part.

HOW THE TEACHING/LEARNING OF ENGLISH IS PROMOTED One of the major points to mention is that learning English (besides French) is becoming more and more appealing to young Moroccans, probably due to the extensive use of English in social media, gaming, and in the research information. Hence, this positive view towards English might push IHE towards promoting the teaching and learning of English as a third language (Benahnia, 2019). Also, the reality is that the equivalent of 80 percent of what is produced from research is currently in English, while 20 percent is shared by the rest of the world and in different languages, including Arabic, French, and others. So foreign higher education providers, as well as local institutes and universities, may consider creating language centers within their facilities to promote the teaching of English at international standards. In his article entitled “The future of English in multilingual Morocco,” Youssef Laaraj, a high school teacher of English, states that: “Recently, relatively subtle or, rather, unpublicized debate has arisen among educators and politicians over the importance of English as a global language in the Moroccan linguistic market. Some political and business figures have voiced that it is high time the English language replaced, or at least rivaled, French in its supremacy in the educational

374

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and economic spheres of Morocco” (Laaraj, 2014). Therefore, regardless of the purely educational aspect and significance regarding the Moroccan language policy (as stated by Youssef Laaraj), it seems that political ideologies “fuel the surfacing of such controversial stances and heated debates; it brings practical profit sought by these figures in order to gain the public attention.” The truth of the matter is that nowadays it is obvious to advocate that English is the language of the modern time in all world countries, and that its status must be promoted to probably co-exist with the French language, and why share the status of being the second language of Many Moroccans—be the first foreign language for Moroccans! Along with several political figures, prominent social activist and businessman Noureddine Ayouch called in various political and media meetings for English to be introduced early in public schooling. Needless to say, these calls have demonstrated the importance of English in today’s world. Hence, the dire need for many Moroccan graduates to know English nowadays appears to be justified, and these pro-English demands anticipate more debates regarding the issue of the status of English in Morocco. Needless to say, English is admittedly the world’s most internationally recognized language for communication among many segments of society and people from different parts of the world. It is the “Lingua Franca” of the globalizing world nowadays, and the language of the rapidly changing and developing world of science and technology. Given that reality, perhaps one day English might be necessary for each Moroccan so that he or she may function effectively in a world that is no longer limited and restricted only to its local or national heritage and frontiers, but rather is universal in all its cultural and economic dimensions. To sum up this discussion, one can be amazed indeed at the speed of technical and scientific progress that has been very quickly achieved in the West over the past few decades. However, developing countries, such as Morocco, must realize that the current and future generation should seriously be engaged in the world of communication and research via English as a medium of instruction and an efficient tool for research. In other words, they should not remain content to merely consume what the Western machine and Western minds are producing or assume that scientific advances are given to them without any participation or engagement.

IHE CURRENT AND FUTURE POSSIBLE CHALLENGES Social and Economic Difficulties: How IHE Is Viewed in Society There are always debates going on in terms of what Moroccan citizens want from education, i.e., at a certain stage (in the late 1990s, for example) people started to lose faith in education after seeing many graduates jobless and unable to get hired as soon as they completed their degrees (Benahnia, 2019). However, with the economic revolution, starting with the reign of King Mohammed IV in 1998, schools and IHE started to flourish, and people started to think once again about finding good education for their children to ensure their future. Also, it became necessary to promote some concepts via education in order to guarantee success at all levels, such as promoting the concept of identity and citizenship through the family relationship with the school. Therefore, it started to become obvious that the school is the main field for the implementation of the general policy of education in the country, for its important role, along with the family, in preparing generations of good and beneficial characters in order to provide society with

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO

375

its need of qualified educationally and professionally skilled competencies capable of meeting the needs of the labor market and also able to take responsibility and achieve the major goals of society. Undoubtedly, achieving these goals requires all possible efforts to preserve the role and prestige of the public school and strengthen its role in establishing the noble values and high morals of young people, while instilling the concepts of faith, identity, and true citizenship in the hearts of generations so as not to blindly drift behind the outsiders or be alien to society. Furthermore, Moroccan citizens have started to believe that success in education is, to an extent, tied to the relationship between family and the graduate schools and universities (including international universities). This is stressed in the modern educational perspective (Ren et al., 2015). Therefore, it is believed that societies always strive to have schools that meet their needs of competencies and skills and are keen to educate generations and equip them with science and knowledge. This can be achieved only by extending the bonds of productive and constructive cooperation between the school and the surrounding community with its various segments, and integrating with its members and institutions to carry out its various educational and pedagogical functions in the full and correct manner, and cannot be left to operate in isolation from the community and without the active involvement of the family in all its activities and some of its programs, whether those programs are educational, cultural, or in sports. Perhaps it is high time to let the parents be engaged in the process of orientation of their children and help them make their decision about their future graduate school or university. By a quick look at the education sector in Morocco, it is noted that there is a huge gap between the family and the school, that the current school system is not in close and active association with society and life in various walks. Parents seem to have lost faith in public schools, feeling disappointed by the outcome and that the schools had deceived their children, by providing knowledge similar to “canned goods” and in the form of subjects that may not meet the needs of the community (Benahnia, 2016). As far as IHE is concerned, it seems that parents are willing to send their children to those international schools or universities located in their area. They believe that it is thanks to these kinds of foreign schools and universities that their children were assisted in getting graduate studies and assured a career in the job market. Also, the majors and the means of instruction in those institutions seem to be more and more advanced and appealing to many students. It also has to be borne in mind that IHE is not targeting the entire population of Morocco, but rather a small proportion—the middle classes and the well off, whereas the majority of the population will remain unable to join these institutions due to poverty and the high cost of living (World Bank, 2018). This in itself might cause discrimination and racism and classification within society, unless these foreign institutions are engaged in embracing a number of students coming from poor areas. Class bias in education, and dissatisfaction in general, may fuel the anger of many young people, especially among those who are unemployed, or those who see this phenomenon as an inequality of opportunities.

Political Stands vis-à-vis IHE Morocco seems to be one of the countries that encourages internationalization of higher education, and is a peaceful country when it comes to being open to other cultures, and to dealing with foreign educational products. However, the reality shows that there are still some inherent apparent and hidden tensions between the provider and the local

376

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

cultural setting. More precisely, there are still tensions between the conservative and the liberal political parties, as the conservatives probably view these outside international providers as “invaders” who are coming to “disturb” the local traditional cultural heritage (including traditional ways of schooling). Dr. Hussain Majdoubi, a Moroccan writer, states that “Decision-making is impulsive, because the private university in Morocco is not an immediate requirement as much as Morocco needs to strengthen the public university, which suffers from a terrible delay in comparison with the history of the country and its surroundings and compared to international universities” (Majdoubi, 2016). Though there has always been a sort of bridging between the nation’s identity and principles, and its main goals and objectives, and finding moderate religious and philosophical approaches towards foreign educational policy and products, there is still fear of “changing the minds” of the young generation (see for example articles in Majalat Attarbia: Journal of Education issues 23 and 24). As stated before, Morocco is a country where more than thirty different political parties compete in a more civilized sense in order to solve major economic obstacles and barriers that are constantly impeding the country’s progress. During elections, each political party tries to convince its adherents and the general public by putting forward its proposed agenda for economic and social growth and improvement strategy, and its proposed method of fixing the existing obstacles and situation. It is worth mentioning here that the conservative parties (such as the Istiqla and the Al Adala Wa Attanmiya) as well as the other main political parties and civil associations, in addition to a large segment of the society, will continue defending the legitimacy of maintaining and preserving the Moroccan religious, social, and cultural ethics and principles deeply rooted in its history. At the same time, those political parties, as well as the civil associations, seem to be open to allow other foreign educational products to be shared and to co-exist side by side with the local inherited modern system as long as these products do not alter or interfere in the local objectives, principles, and, most of all, the Moroccan unity and identity. For example, some families might believe that once their children join these foreign schools or universities, they will become more Westernized and start slowly losing their identity as Moroccans. However, it seems that wealthy parents are more eager to assist their children in joining these international institutions and universities as their programs are more appealing and their curriculum is more geared towards business and management majors. Furthermore, the strategic vision of His Majesty King Mohammed VI vis-à-vis IHE and its implementation in Morocco is very clear, as it is supposed to be the locomotive for development in the African continent and the Arab World.

FUTURE ASPIRATIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS Perhaps, in the near future, IHE can be regarded as an incubator and sponsor of arts and humanities, besides science and technology. So far, we can advocate that IHE has succeeded—to a certain extent—in modifying the field of science and technology majors, as well as medicine. However, a lot of work still needs to be done in terms of accommodating the other majors in the field of arts and humanities since there is a large portion of the Moroccan student population that may have a great interest in those majors. Hence, there is no doubt that, not too long ago, one could observe that the abundance of intellectual production and the upbringing of generations on proper behavior and sound thought was the pioneering and prevalent idea, and many nations throughout history have been able to translate and download that lofty goal on the ground. These generations are a

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO

377

breakthrough in cognitive and intellectual production, manifested in the paths of literature, poetry, philosophy, science, and the arts in all walks including theater, cinema, and others. There is no doubt that IHE might succeed in fully co-existing side by side with the other national schools and universities if they are engaged in integrating art and humanities as full-fledged majors and introducing new courses and programs for those interested in those majors. For centuries, the supreme morality and thought have been the basis for living and coexisting, and the search for ways of peace and prosperity, and happiness, have been manifested via arts and humanities. In fact, literary studies and majors throughout history have produced people who are fond of writing and reading and eager for the search for knowledge. Also, there is no doubt that IHE can help in the branching of human sciences and the expansion and development of their fields because they have a profound impact on that cognitive prosperity and in preserving all the components of the cultural heritage of every society. Since the arts and humanities are one of the pillars of normal behavior, along with religious and moral motivation, good education and the establishment of security and peace within the community can be achieved via increasing and spreading literary works and the love of reading among our generations. Not surprisingly, we find some researchers and scholars who attribute the current decline in the intellectual and cognitive production of individuals to the degree of interest in human sciences, as these subjects help to sharpen the capacity of young people to be creative, as well as refining their talents and expanding their thought and knowledge. Moreover, the arts and humanities also play an important role in the eradication of illiteracy and ignorance, enlighten minds, expand the circle of thought of the individual and society, and tend to reduce violence levels in societies. It can also be said that there is almost complete consensus today that societies are in dire need of reviving the humanities and strengthening their place in educational institutions across the globe, for the better moral conduct and behavior of citizens. The Moroccan society is not in need of shallow doctors and engineers and teachers, it is rather in need of individuals who are equipped with moral values, true knowledge, ethics, and principles. Therefore, IHE providers should probably be willing to enlarge the scope of their services to the extent that they reach most regions of Morocco and maybe other countries and regions in Africa. In other words, the business of IHE may not cross the border of any concerned country if it does not succeed in co-existing and collaborating with the already existing local universities or educational institutions. However, perhaps the real success in this is their ability in engaging in society sincere development via the modernization of all curricula and technologies, as well as assisting future graduates with enough knowledge and skills in the fields of science and technology, literature and the arts as well, since the whole society is striving to raise individuals possessing high personal characters and morals. This in turn, will definitely equip the society with skillful individuals with high competencies that would satisfy the need of the labor market and reduce all kinds of crimes and violence.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The reality of internationalization of higher education in Morocco shows that it is still striving to co-exist among local national universities, schools, and higher specialized institutions. In other words, there are still ongoing debates as to whether Morocco should adopt the Anglo-Saxon educational system or continue to rely on the French system (using French as a second language and as a means of instruction). Available data and research

378

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

studies (such as Mahon, 2018; Maarouf, 2016; and Laaraj, 2014) exemplify that Morocco, as a nation, is open to other cultures because it is willing to recognize other ways of social life and refuses to remain in splendid isolation in fear it would starve for knowledge in the future. Perhaps the situation of IHE in Morocco may remain unique as Morocco is still holding tight to its social values and respecting the cultural traditions of its own people as well as the culture and traditions of others. This did not prevent the country from adopting other foreign educational systems and products. Hence, even conservative political parties are nowadays seeking moderate openness and collaboration with foreign providers in the field of education. Nevertheless, they are keen on preserving the local educational, cultural, and social heritage. Young students’ generations as well as parents are seeking advanced knowledge in more reputable and safe institutions and universities. They also reject the idea that their nation would remain undeveloped or behind in its political, economic, scientific, and technological standards. Therefore religious or cultural resistance should not become a deterrent towards the internationalization of higher education, along with developing local universities and educational institutions and encouraging arts and humanities and strengthening those majors that are taught in Arabic or French as a medium of instruction. The relationship between the schools and the family should be revised, and parents and students’ guardians must be fully aware of their children’s achievements and output. They ought to be engaged in some of their children’s school or university activities, else they would plunge their nation’s social and educational structure into the darkness of ignorance and the bulk of the public would remain undeveloped. In other words, there must be an ongoing process of communication in the relationship between university and family, and that process or relationship shall nurture knowledge in a more reciprocal manner. Morocco is indeed trying to stride with other nations and is showing its willingness to develop by sharing and promoting knowledge locally and elsewhere in Africa. Still it seems that integration of foreign educational plans and procedures designed by foreign providers is moving erratically due to known barriers of religious, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and social colors. Although Morocco is pushing the educational partnership issue with foreign universities and higher education institutions quite hard, this spirit will remain under the conservative, Islamist, political, and religious visions and concepts for the sake of the nation’s principles, unity, integrity, identity, and pride, i.e., the political parties as well as the public shall always stick to those values and principles. Such reality issues behind a progressing nation somehow seem to remain bound to the great surging waves of national patriotism and unity for preserving traditional values. Consequently, and taking the above mentioned facts into consideration, the new foreign based educational procedures, technical programs, and induction of beneficial partnerships in Morocco may not go into jeopardy; and the nation, under the directives of its King, seems to proceed in the search for the development of its education system, and for further reforms at all levels for the wellbeing of its people. Success of internationalization of higher education will remain bound to the on the ground results and the extent of a real contribution in developing local universities and institutions, assisting the government in terms of revamping its national educational system, improving the administrative and social services, making major progress in the area of scientific research and the improvement of healthcare services and patients’ satisfaction. In other words, IHE’s future existence and its flourishing in Morocco will—to a certain extent—depend on a viable partnership and those foreign providers should be willing to extend a hand to the local authorities, universities, and educational institutions so that they themselves can improve their services and outcomes, and assist the young generation in assuring a respected professional career and a better social life. Moreover, what had been

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO

379

stated above as facts about the existence and survival of IHE in Morocco are a clear indication that the key element of success and survival of those foreign universities and institutions is their ability to better serve the Moroccan young generation, as well as society in general, by genuinely assisting the local authorities and the co-existing universities and educational institutes in revamping their curricula and programs, as well as improving their service in general, and reforming the educational policies and procedures advocated by the Ministry of Higher Education. Their efforts in doing so must move in parallel with the principles and strategies of the major political parties in the country, as well as the voice of civic associations, as they all hold tight to the preservation and “safeguarding” of the nation’s religious principles, social cultural mosaic heritage, local national and regional customs and traditions, linguistic diversity, and Moroccan identity and political regime. In other words, foreign educational sources should be intelligently harnessed with cooperation and asked to tailor their programs to suit the Moroccan nation’s principles, objectives, and goals accordingly, and must also accommodate the psyche of the traditional learner in the country, i.e., the programs should not involve any foreign ideologies or philosophy that may go against those local principles. It is also imperative that those foreign education providers encourage and find suitable systematic venues of partnership aimed at improving scientific research. The idea of implementing intercultural competence (ICC) as a crucial rubric in their curricula is a valuable source for stability and long-term service. Finally, haste by some Western educational product providers in trying to make huge profits at the expense of neglecting the true needs of the local people and society remains a real threat to the co-existence and survival of those institutions and may sooner impede their success locally and perhaps in the world of academia as well. In this context, the following points should be taken into account as long as there are opportunities to transfer the Moroccan experience to the African continent and elsewhere: ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Respect the local and national culture, political regime, identity, and integrity of the society Develop strategic plans for scientific research with a national, regional, and international dimension, and assist the Ministry of Education in a review of all laws and procedures related to the field of education and scientific research Assist in linking scientific research closely with the economic, social, developmental, educational, and cultural plans of the country. In addition, assist the Moroccan authorities in establishing a mechanism and a framework to motivate and reward researchers, as well as the administrative body that supports researchers and give every person his/her right accordingly Maintain respect for intellectual property and patents of the local authors and writers Encourage scientific research from the early stages of education and simplify it adequately so that the local students may get used to it Assist in the allocation of university scientific chairs funded by major companies and philanthropists and everyone who wants good for Morocco Provide local job opportunities to local professors and scholars and assist in reducing the migration of national minds and brains and recruit them even from abroad by setting high incentives and a reward mechanism that will rise to the level of researchers at the international level

380 ●

●

●

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Assist local universities by conducting useful collaborative educational and cross-cultural media coverage, seminars, and workshops that would benefit students and parents as well Create competitive local competitions to promote the value of literary and artistic achievements as well as scientific research Promote the teaching and learning of English, while maintaining both Arabic, Berber, and French in respect of linguistic diversity and stability, and allocate free seats for brilliant students whose parents are unable to pay, and give a chance to orphans as well.

In addition to the above mentioned points, the government should also look for policies and laws that regulate everything related to the collaboration between local national universities and the IHE foreign providers, including the rules and regulations related to scientific research and supporting material resources and motivate all who are interested in scientific research according to international standards. Those responsible for the reform of the education system should take scientific research seriously, as stated earlier, because it is the main gateway to economic, social, and cultural progress and growth. We should remember that the scientific experiment in the industrialized countries views scientific research and development as continuous processes ranging from total quality control (in all its dimensions and public services) to the maximum amount of studies and exploratory research. To ensure the realization of all the above mentioned ideas and suggestions, it is vital for the Ministry of Education as well as IHE foreign providers to start bringing in the private sector as a source of funding based on partnership, and cooperative and collaborative approach. Finally, success in the business of internationalization of higher education as well as transnational education in Morocco is contingent to the implementation of the above mentioned facts, recommendations, and suggestions, in addition to others. Hence, the policies and procedures in relation to IHE and TNE must be charted and implemented in accordance with and in respect to total quality measurements and international standards, leading to the achievement and betterment of IHE outcomes and objectives in the context and environment of Morocco and raising the chance of its application and implementation throughout the MENA region or probably elsewhere.

REFERENCES Al Ahdath Info (2017). Tuesday, May 2, electronic newspaper. Addirassa (n.d.). Arabic website. https://en.al-dirassa.com/ Al Masmoudi Abdellah (2019). A government reshuffle. The king instructs Al Othmani to inject new blood into the government by proposing efficient names for investment (article published in Arabic). Howiyapress electronic newspaper, July 2019. Rabat, Morocco. http:// howiyapress.com Al Bayan (2014). Scientific research . . . The potential gap and the absence of strategy behind the delay of the Arabs, March 15, 2014, electronic newspaper. Beghi, Laila (2011). Monarchy vs. political parties in Morocco: Greed for power. February 22, 2011. wordpress.com Benahnia, Abdellah (1992). The cultural component in EFL textbooks used in Morocco. MA Thesis. Morgantown: WVU .

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOROCCO

381

Benahnia, Abdellah (1996). A historical study of educational reform policy in Morocco. Doctorate dissertation, Morgantown: WVU . Benahnia, Abdellah (2015). Transnational education in Morocco: Current and future challenges. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(11). www.iiste.org Benahnia, Abdellah (2016). Loyalty to my dearest public school: A tale of a school boy (article published in Arabic). Hespress electronic newspaper, December 5, 2016. Rabat, Morocco. http://hespress.com Benahnia, Abdellah (2017). The future of scientific research in the horizon of the reform of the educational system (article published in Arabic). Hespress electronic newspaper, April 22, 2017. Rabat, Morocco. https://www.hespress.com Benahnia, Abdellah (2019). Teaching in languages or studying languages: Where is the imbalance? (article published in Arabic). Hespress electronic newspaper, April 5, 2019. Rabat, Morocco. http://hespress.com CIA (2012). The Worldfact Book, Morocco. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/mo.html Hespress (2014). Electronic newspaper, June 25, 2014. http://documents,Worldbank.org/ curated/en/375771529960237724/CLEAREDMorocco-SCD-ENGLISH-finalJune2018-06212018.docx International Human Indicators (2011). Human Development Index (HDI) website. http:// hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/mar.html Laaraj, Youssef (2014). The future of English in multilingual Morocco. Morocco World News, July 4, 2014. https://www.moroccoworldnews.com Maarouf, Mohammed (2016). The crisis of higher education in Morocco. Morocco World News, January 24, 2016. https://www.moroccoworldnews.com Mahon, Mark (2016). Higher education reform: The benefits of cost. Morocco World News, January 24, 2016. https://www.moroccoworldnews.com Majdoubi, Hussain (2016). The expected collapse after Morocco’s decision to move to private universities (article in Arabic). Al Qouds Arabi newspaper, September 26, 2016. Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur de la Recherche Scientifique et de la Formation des Cadres (n.d.). ISTE des Etablissements D’enseignement Supérieur Prive Autorises Par le M.E.S.F.C.R.S. Ministry of Education (n.d.). Official website. https://www.men.gov.ma/en/Pages/ benmokhtar%E2%80%99sbiography.aspx Ministry of Education (2017). Ministère de l’Education Nationale, de la Formation Professionnelle, de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique Secrétariat d’Etat Chargé de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique (July, 2017). Legislative and Regulatory Texts for Higher Education. Rabat: Morocco. Qassem, Amjad (2010). The crisis of Arab scientific research to where? (Azmat Al Baht Al ’ilmi Fi al ’alam al Arabi, ilaayn?). Al Faysal Scientific Journal (Majalat Al Faysal Al ’ilmiyah), 7(4). Supreme Education Council (2016). Annual Report on the Outcome and Prospects of the Council’s Work. Rabat: Morocco. World Bank (2018). The World Bank Annual Report 2018 (English). Washington, DC : World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/630671538158537244/TheWorld-Bank-Annual-Report-2018

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR

Internationalization of Higher Education in Egypt Modalities and Policy Provisions TEKLU ABATE BEKELE AND BOLA IBRAHIM

INTRODUCTION Following the 2011 revolution, Egypt experienced profound socio-economic and political changes that directly affected its higher education provision. Egypt articulates its 2030 vision and its higher education system has identified internationalization as one of the strategic pillars for realizing the vision. To regulate the establishment and organization of international branch campuses, national frameworks and structures were also established by the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt in 2018. However, studies that methodically explore the recently emerging fundamental features of Internationalization of Higher Education (IHE) in Egypt are yet to gain momentum. Using interpretive policy analysis (Cardno, 2018; Marshall, 2000; Olssen, Codd, and O’Neill, 2004; Wagenaar, 2007; Walker, Rahman, and Cave, 2001), and focusing on recently emerging change dynamics in higher education and society, this chapter epitomizes IHE in Egypt. The goal is to deepen our understanding of how internationalization mediates global, regional, and national perspectives and dynamics in higher education which could have implications for policymaking and further research. For a better understanding of IHE, “a sharper focus is needed to understand the differing rationales, intended outcomes and regulatory processes” (Knight, 2019: 7). The following questions thus guide the study. ●

Why and how does Egypt embark on internationalization of higher education?

●

How does Egypt regulate internationalization of higher education?

METHODOLOGY Based on a methodical examination of policy and other documents, this chapter explores the modalities, rationales, and regulatory mechanisms of IHE in Egypt. The interpretive policy 382

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

383

analysis framework (Wagenaar, 2007) is chosen for its comprehensiveness in explaining the ontological, epistemological, methodological, and ethical dimensions of policy analysis. The assumptions that scaffold this study include the following. First, this study assumes that the dimension of social reality under investigation, IHE, is a socio-cultural construction that reflects global, regional, national, and institutional dynamics linked to economics, politics, education, development, and sustainability. Although internationalization is considered as dynamic and is context specific, the many actors involved in it share common understandings about its significance and relevance. Second, knowledge about internationalization is constructed with a prime goal of understanding. The body of descriptions, shared interpretations, and understandings make our knowledge of internationalization. Because of the dynamic nature of internationalization, our knowledge of it is always tentative and lacks permanency or objectivity. Third, Egypt’s national policies and plans for higher education and internationalization are subjected to critical and methodical interpretations. This study puts Egypt and its higher education at the center of the analysis and aspires to understand and interpret, from their vantage points first, internationalization rationales, modalities, regulative mechanisms, and how they interplay with the global, regional, and national actors. The second level of analysis draws on relevant theoretical frameworks and other literature to support more critical interpretations and explanations. To analyze policies and other documents linked to internationalization, the study uses the Cardno (2018) framework of policy analysis. This method involves analysis of policy context (policy rationale and purpose), policy text (policy elements including provisions and regulative strategies), and policy consequences (intended impact). The study also considers intertextuality, that “documents do not construct systems or domains of documentary reality as individual, separate activities (Atkinson and Coffey, 2004: 67). For successfully mapping out the core features of IHE in Egypt, the analysis considers documents besides national policies. The lack of empirical studies on IHE in Africa, including in Egypt (Knight, 2019), also justifies the significance of intertextuality. Qualitative content analysis of policy and other documents is conducted. To minimize bias in interpretive policy analysis, description of evidence needs to be provided first without resorting to interpretation (Atkinson and Coffey, 2004; Cardno, 2018). Descriptions of the modalities and provisions as well as rationales of internationalization are first presented without resorting to interpretations. Texts are analyzed without having particular theories identified a priori, as the study takes an inductive approach to the use of theory. In inductive analysis, theoretical explanations emerge directly from descriptions of observations (Bryman, 2012; Creswell, 2003). The goal of the analysis is to develop a theoretical explanation of IHE based on a methodic description of policy and other text. As internationalization is a function of several conditions and factors, interpretation also considers recent political, economic, and educational reform movements in Egypt which are briefly highlighted below.

CONTEXTUALIZATION OF INTERNATIONALIZATION Boasting a population of 100 million (Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics; CAPMAS, 2020a), Egypt is largely viewed as the cornerstone of the Middle East and the gateway to Africa (Middle East Monitor, 2019). This strategic positioning, coupled with it being home to some of the most sophisticated ancient civilizations, makes Egypt one of the most internationally known countries in the world.

384

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Politico-economic Dynamics Major political dynamics have occurred during the last decade, which drastically changed the fabric of Egyptian society (Diwan, 2016; Zambelis, 2013). Among the major changes first came the January 2011 revolution, the quick rise up to power and downfall of Egypt’s biggest opposition (the Muslim Brotherhood) in 2013 (Durac, 2018), and finally the return of the military leadership to the country’s presidency (Prescott, 2019). These developments, though contradictory in nature, have revived the hopes of Egyptians for socio-political changes (Hasanen and Nuruzzaman, 2013). In the midst of these changes, the economy saw its most controversial growth in 2016 when Egypt received conditional approval for a $12 billion IMF loan. The loan brought key structural reforms to the economy including removal of fuel subsidiaries, halting of state-backing of the local currency (Pound floatation), and a considerable increase in local taxes (IMF, 2019). These tough measures taken by the Egyptian government have apparently made social conditions very difficult for ordinary households (World Bank, 2019). Nevertheless, the reform program presumably boosted the performance of the economy and the international outlook of the country’s political leadership (IMF and Central Asia Dept., 2019; Moody’s Regular Update, 2019; Standard and Poor’s, 2019). The World Bank (2019) also considers Egypt as a fast-growing, emerging economy. The Market Capacity Index 2017 has ranked Egypt at 25th of the 138 countries, superseding major economies such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (MSCI, 2017). Unemployment rates have also dropped to 9.9 percent for the first time in a decade (CAPMAS, 2020b). This also goes in line with the Egyptian government’s claim that the economy has finally taken off despite the controversial implementation of the IMFfunded economic reform program between 2016 and 2019. Due partly to improving macroeconomic conditions, “Egypt represents an excellent opportunity for investors and education providers looking for growth in the MENA— Middle East and North Africa—region” (PwC, 2019: 3). This economic advocation by one of the major consultancy agencies in the Middle East is consistent with a recent surge in transnational education investments in Egypt. A brief history of higher education is introduced first followed by an overview of its structure, governance, funding, and quality and relevance issues.

Brief History of Higher Education Founded in 970/972, Al-Azhar University in Cairo is one of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the world (Encyclopaedia Britannica, n.d.). The university has studies in Islamic law and jurisprudence, Arabic grammar, Islamic astronomy, Islamic philosophy, and logic. The university establishes and runs a network of schools across Egypt. Some of the most noticeable features of IHE in Egypt such as international mobility and student scholarships, which are highlighted below, have started at Al-Azhar. Mohammad Ali Pasha established higher level schools (colleges) of engineering, medicine, and languages (Mohamed, Skinner, and Trines, 2019) between 1805 and 1848; they were modeled after the French system (Starrett, 1998). In the first few decades of the twentieth century, the British colonial administration imposed English as a language of instruction in the entire education system (Mohamed et al., 2019). The purpose was to prepare the human capital needed to serve the colonial interests (OECD, 2015). However,

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

385

the system gained more exposure to the Western arts and sciences, which allowed Egyptian scholars (students and faculty) to travel abroad for further studies and research. Egypt’s modern higher education is, however, a century old; the first higher education institution, the Egyptian University (now Cairo University), was established in 1908, followed by the American University in Cairo (AUC) in 1919. Egypt has expanded its network of higher education institutions by creating branches of main universities in various geographic locations across the country, which would later become independent, full-fledged universities (EU, 2017). Size and Structure As of 2018, Egypt has thirty-one private and twenty-six public universities (Mohamed et al., 2019), including a small number of universities operating under special laws, such as Al-Azhar University, or under intergovernmental agreements, such as the AUC, and Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport (Lane, 2018). There are also forty-five high institutes, which offer associate degrees and full four-year degree programs (MoHESR, 2019). The government aspires to build eight more technological universities in the near future. Universities (public, private, and national non-for profit “Ahleyya”), higher specialized institutes, technical colleges, middle institutes, upper middle institutes, and academies offer higher education in Egypt (EU, 2017). Higher education credentials include postsecondary diplomas, higher diplomas, bachelor’s degrees, postgraduate diplomas, master’s and doctoral degrees. The system accommodates 3.1 million students who are enrolled in both state-run and private higher education institutions in Egypt. About 406,369 students graduate from public higher education institutions every year compared with 23,770 graduates from private universities (CAPMAS, 2019). The system employs 122,000 faculty members and researchers (MoHESR, 2018). According to the Minister of Higher Education and scientific Research, “there are 220,000 students enrolled in graduate studies, and about 1,200 envoys in priority fields of the Egyptian state such as water, nanotechnology and some medical specialties. Additionally, universities host more than 60,000 students of various nationalities from the expatriate sector” (Egypt Today, 2019: n.p.). Gross enrollment reached 34 percent in 2016, making Egypt about to transit from mass to universal higher education provision (Bekele, 2018). Governance Higher education in Egypt is regulated by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MoHESR). Setting policies, overseeing implementation, supervising, and coordinating all tertiary education is the responsibility of the ministry. The Supreme Council of Universities, the Supreme Council of Private Universities, the Supreme Council of Technical Institutes, and the Supreme Council of Technological Universities aid the ministry (EU, 2017). The Al-Azhar Institutes Central Administration governs the Al-Azhar University (EU, 2017). The laws and their amendments that govern higher education include Law on Regulation of Universities, Law on Regulation of Private Universities, and Law on Regulation of Private and National (Non-profit) Universities (EU, 2017: 1). The National Authority for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Education (NAQAAE) accredits both public and private universities at institutional, faculty and program levels. Recent Reform Initiatives The Egyptian Constitution (2014) requires that not less than 4 percent of the total GDP be allocated to the public education system and an additional

386

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

2 percent of GDP should be spent on higher education. The government is mandated with funding higher education in Egypt (EU, 2017). The mainstream budget comes from the Ministry of Finance and is governed by complex statutory requirements and spending limitations (Mohamed et al., 2019). Public expenditure on education reached 3.5 percent of GDP before the January 2011 revolution (Johnson, 2018). In August 2019, the MoHESR announced that its 2019 budget recorded an unprecedented increase of 7 billion EGP with a total of 43.5 billion EGP against the 36.5 billion EGP 2018 budget (Egypt Today, 2019). The relevance and quality of higher education provision is seriously questioned. The World Bank and OECD joint study concluded that any potential reform needs to focus on access, quality, governance, and funding (OECD, 2010). Recent international indicators such as the Human Capital Index of 2017 by the World Bank ranked Egypt at 104 of the 157 countries included in the study (World Bank, 2018). Egypt has also ranked 93rd out of 141 countries in the Global Competitiveness Report, 82nd in terms of institutions, 99th in terms of skills, and 61st in terms of capacity for innovation (Schwab, 2019). Egypt’s performance in all these important global indicators is largely viewed as declining especially when compared with peer economies in the Middle East (Johnson, 2018). The higher education sector has still seen interesting developments in the last five years under the 2014–2019 Growth in Size and Structure of Egypt’s Higher Education Sector reform. The MoHESR (2019) has focused its work on five key pillars: ●

●

●

●

●

Increasing the capacity of the state-run higher education to accommodate more students. The number of faculties (schools) has increased from 392 to 450, and the number of programs offered has also increased from 117 to 171, with an additional cost of EGP 9 billion. Also, the number of private universities has increased from 18 to 27, which bears an indirect investment of EGP 6.4 billion. Quality assurance and performance management of the system. The Ministry has supported 140 public colleges and schools to be fully accredited by the NAQAA. Increase of student enrollment and faculty appointment, where the number of appointed faculty members within the system has grown up from 106, 577 to 122, 577 (15 percent). Also, the number of students increased from 2.3 to 3.1 million, with an additional cost of EGP 4 billion. International student numbers have also increased from 22,245 to 70,525 (217 percent), bringing $18.7 million worth of income to the public domain. The Ministry budget also has seen a massive increase from EGP 25 billion, to EGP 43 billion in 2019. Development of universities’ hospitals and medical staff and faculty.

Education and Sustainable Development The Egypt Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) 2030 Vision was formulated and publicly announced by the President of Egypt in September 2015 at the first International Youth Forum. The Egypt Cabinet (n.d.) views the SDS 2030 as the “foothold on the way towards inclusive development.” The 2030 strategy aims at creating inclusive growth and development at economic, environmental, educational, and societal levels. Bohl et al. (2018) state that these levels are considered as “integrated and indivisible,” where the strategy should be “taking advantage of interlinkages and synergies between goals.” The UN (2016) also considered Egypt’s 2030 ambition as a “forward-looking” strategy that is “unprecedented in its scope and

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

387

significance.” Education, the seventh of the ten key pillars that comprise the overall Egypt SDS 2030, is an essential substance of the strategy and its implementation (Egypt SDS 2030, 2016). There is a notable presidency backing for education, represented in the “2019 Year of Education” announcement by the President of Egypt (World Education News and Reviews; WENR, 2019). There appears to be a political willingness and readiness for redefining the future of the Egyptian education system. The 2030 vision for education is focused on education for all, institutional development and sustainability as key concepts, and critical thinking, creativity, and technology as key skills. The strategic pillars of the Egypt SDS 2030 vision to education are access, internationalization, quality, and competitiveness. The goal of the new strategy is to create and develop competitive citizens who can compete in a globalized economy and promote diversity and inclusion of the different fabrics of the Egyptian society. The MoHESR (2018) has identified seven higher education objectives to be achieved by 2030: achieve 45 percent increase in gross enrollment in standard tertiary education (currently 36 percent); expansion of the official accreditation of the NAQAA to include all higher education institutions; improve the worldwide ranking of at least ten Egyptian state universities to be among the top 500 universities globally; reduce the unemployment rate; upturn the relevance of graduate skills to the requirements of the labor market; promote and encourage entrepreneurship among university graduates; and increase international student mobility by 100 percent. Within the context of Egypt’s 2030 vision, the next section explores the modalities, rationales, and regulatory mechanisms of the IHE in Egypt. It consecutively explores early manifestations of IHE, international student mobility, and international branch campuses in Egypt. The subsequent section offers a theoretical explanation of IHE in Egypt.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Early Beginnings of Internationalization Higher education in Egypt has had “an embedded spirit of internationalization for hundreds of years” (Radwan, 2016: 19). Specifically, student mobility has been an integral part of Egyptian higher education. Students “from around the world, and particularly from Asia and Africa, would travel to Egypt to study in Al-Azhar University” (Radwan, 2016: 19). “Al-Azhar continues to host the highest number of foreign students, mainly Asian and African students, seeking theological education” (EU, 2017: 23). Other early elements of IHE existed between 1908 and 1952 when major universities such as Cairo University and its branch in Alexandria, as well as the American University in Cairo, started operating as liberal arts institutions (EU, 2017). They taught in English and brought in faculty from Europe and the United States who specialized in oriental studies (EU, 2017). Embracing liberal arts, focused pedagogy, and embedding foreign faculty and curricula into higher education at an early stage in Egypt have brought a flair of internationalization to the system. This international flair changed the mindset of generations of the Egyptian elite and paved the way for more internationalization to take place in other forms such as inbound and outbound faculty and student mobility, research collaboration, and institutional links. Since the early 1900s, “Egypt has adopted a system of ‘Scientific Missions’ aimed at enhancing research, education and development in Egypt, based on the transfer of technology and know-how

388

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

from scholars who travel to various parts of the world and obtain degrees and qualifications from abroad” (EU, 2017: 23). As part of the strategy for establishing a modern Egyptian state, Muhammad Ali Pasha sent academics to Europe (Radwan, 2016). This tradition continues to date, and Egypt sends academic missions to the developed world “to pursue postgraduate studies and do research. Some missions are supported fully by Egypt; others are supported by grants from the hosting country, fully or partially” (Radwan, 2016: 22). Expatriate teaching and research staff are also welcomed to Egyptian universities, most of which have established dedicated offices for expatriate services (ibid.). The period from 1950 to 1970 saw massive decline in the quality of higher education following the nationalization of the sector (Mohamed et al., 2019: OECD, 2015). With the adoption of socialism as a national system, internationalization was systematically discouraged. Restrictions were put on student and faculty mobility, and research missions were limited to a few Western countries of similar national attributions to socialism such as the Soviet Union. With the Sadat open-door policy in the 1970s, and the establishment of the Universities Law of 1972, it became lawful again that students and faculty of public universities be allowed to travel abroad for research and knowledge exchange (EU, 2017). Inbound and outbound student exchange programs were increasing, especially with the emerging Asian countries such as Malaysia and Singapore. Egypt was able to benefit from bilateral and multilateral agreements to further embrace international technical assistance and official development assistance. The flair of internationalization started to come back to Egypt between the 1970s and 1990s, and it reached its peak with the increase in privatization of higher education, and in the 2000s with the surge of transnational education. In the early 2000s, the World Bank encouraged privatization of higher education in Egypt as a means of “cost sharing” and to support a more diverse higher education provision (Barsoum, 2014; Galal et al., 2008). Nevertheless, Egypt has pioneered the notion of private higher education since the beginning of the twentieth century. The first higher education providers in Egypt were privately held entities (Barsoum, 2014). Cairo University started operating as a civil non-governmental university in 1908 up until 1952 (Cairo University, n.d.). Similarly, Alexandria University started initially with the name Farouk I University and operated as part of the parent Cairo University from 1938 to 1952 (Alexandria University, 2019). The American University in Cairo (AUC) was established as a private university in 1919 (AUC, n.d.). Consequently, Egypt’s privatization of higher education actually started a long time before the enactment in 1992 of the Law on Regulation of Private Universities, which is widely perceived as the beginning of privatization of higher education in Egypt. Major private universities in Egypt have pioneered internationalization of their own by forming Transnational Education (TNE) agreements with partners in the UK and the United States. The Modern Sciences and Arts University (MSA) started a TNE partnership with Greenwich University in 2003 (MSA, n.d.); the British University in Cairo (BUE) has an ongoing joint agreement with various UK higher education partners such as London South Bank University since 2005 (BUE, n.d.). Early private higher education provisions have consequently created an inspiration and evidence that privatization is beneficial to the sector, the economy, and to the society at large. Privatization was also an important expression of IHE in Egypt in the twentieth century and became a catalyst that accelerated internationalizing the sector in the first two decades of the twenty-first century. It enabled international academic collaboration

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

389

between private Egyptian institutions and their foreign partners, which served as the launch pad for transnational education to emerge in Egypt a long time before many other MENA countries embarked on it.

Recent Developments In recent times, Egypt has aspired to intensify and systematize its internationalization ambitions linked to its economy and the higher education landscape. Egypt is actively participating in such international organizations and programs as: UNESCO; OECD; USAID and Fulbright; TEMPUS; Erasmus Mundus and Erasmus+; DAAD of Germany; British Council UK; JAICA of Japan; the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization—ALECSO; the Islamic States Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—ISESCO; and the Africa–EU strategic partnership, Tuning Africa (Radwan, 2016). Egypt has also established “bilateral cooperation with universities in the EU countries, Arab world, Africa, USA, Canada, countries in Asia and all over the world” and its universities are members of several regional and international networks, including the Association of Arab Universities and the Universities of the Mediterranean (EU, 2017: 24). Its strategic positioning seems to partly help Egypt to become connected to Europe, Asia, Africa, and other regional and global actors working in education and development. Egypt, for instance, is the “fifth largest host country for UK transnational educationTNE” (Universities UK International, UUKI, 2018: 2). TNE provision in Egypt “mainly consists of double/multiple and joint degree programmes delivered in collaboration with local public and private HEIs,” most of which are funded by DAAD and the European Commission (McNamara and Knight, 2015: 16). International Branch Campuses (IBCs) are emerging as a significant mode of TNE provision and student mobility in Egypt (Bekele, 2018). For their prevalence and significance, this study further examines international mobility and IBCs as the two salient modes of the IHE in Egypt.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT MOBILITY Inbound Student Mobility The scale of inbound international student mobility in Egypt seems to steadily grow despite recent political instability in the country. According to the UNESCO statistics, Egypt stood fourth after Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE in the number of international students studying in its universities in 2016 (see Figure 24.1). The scale of international student presence in Egypt across times also appears to be steadily increasing, except for a significant drop in 2003 and 2013 (see Figure 24.2). Egypt thus becomes “an increasingly important and booming international education hub in the MENA region” (Mohamed et al., 2019: n.p.). Egypt’s Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Khaled Abdel-Ghaffar, indicated that “Egypt ranks as one of the top 20 most attractive countries for international students” (Al-Youm, 2019: n.p.). Egypt is emerging as an international student hub “due to public institutions being open to noncitizens, which is not the case in most Arab Gulf states; and affordable tuition rates relative to many other regional institutions” (Lane, 2018: 7–8). The international students in Egypt come from diverse backgrounds. Most of them are from “the Arab world, Africa and Central Asia” (EU, 2017: 23). Figure 24.3 shows the

390

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 24.1: Number of inbound international students in select Arab countries in 2016. Source: UIS Stat: http://data.uis.unesco.org/

FIGURE 24.2: Number of international students in Egypt across years. Source: Based on El-Ghaffar (2017).

top seven sending countries of international degree-seeking students in Egypt in 2016, with Asia taking the lead. Both public and private institutions accommodate the ever-growing international student body in Egypt, with Al-Azhar University taking the highest number: The number of foreign students enrolled in all Egyptian higher education institutions is distributed across the different institutions. The number of foreign students enrolled

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

391

FIGURE 24.3: Sources of international students in Egypt in 2016. Source: Based on Mohamed et al., 2019.

in private universities is superseding those enrolled in public universities, while AlAzhar University continues to host the highest number of foreign students, mainly Asian and African students, seeking theological education. Most of these students receive a grant for studying at Al-Azhar that covers study and accommodation expenses. It is also noticeable that among the public universities, Cairo, Ain-Shams and Alexandria attract most of the international students. —EU, 2017: 23

Outbound Mobility The nature of outbound international student mobility is also interesting. Figure 24.4 indicates that Egypt stands fourth after Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Turkey in the size of outbound international student mobility in the Arab states in 2017. Egyptians are studying in universities in the Middle East, Europe, and the United States. Figure 24.5 shows the destinations of Egyptian degree-seeking students in 2016 (Mohamed et al., 2109) where the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia attracted the highest number of Egyptian students. Universities in the United States, France, and the UK also attracted thousands of Egyptian students. Egypt’s participation in Erasmus Mundus and Erasmus+ mobility schemes positively contributed to student mobility. For example, “over 1000 Egyptian students benefited from Erasmus Mundus scholarships from almost the majority of Egyptian universities. In the 2015 call for International Credit Mobility by Erasmus+, Egypt ranked among the highest 20 countries benefiting from these funds” (EU, 2017: 24). Egyptian students are also studying in TNE programs available in Egypt. The Egyptian Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research revealed that “Egypt is the fifth largest host country for UK TNE students. The number of students choosing to study for

392

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 24.4: Number of outbound international students in the Arab states in 2017. Source: UIS Stat. http://data.uis.unesco.org/

FIGURE 24.5: Destinations of degree-seeking Egyptian students abroad in 2016. Source: Based on Mohamed et al., 2019.

UK degrees in Egypt increased by 35 percent in three years. In 2015/16 around 17,000 students were studying for UK degrees in Egypt” (2017: n.p.). In 2016–17, Egypt received the most UK TNE students in Africa: 19,615 students (UUKI, 2018). The opening of International Branch Campuses (IBCs) on Egyptian soil is one of the most significant recent developments altering the higher education landscape in Egypt. The Republic Presidency (2018) promulgated a law to oversee the establishment and organization of IBCs in Egypt. The Law, officially called Law No. 162 of 2018 The

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

393

Establishment and Organization of International Branch Campuses Within The Arab Republic of Egypt and University Institutions, includes provisions that will enable international universities to establish “independent, single-institution branch campuses; multi-institution branch campuses that offer programs from a number of international providers; branch campuses in partnership with Egyptian universities to offer joint awards” (UUKI, 2018: 5–6). Egypt wanted to have IBCs in the newly built administrative capital, New Cairo. The new city will host several universities from the United States, the UK, Hungary, Canada, Sweden, and France (Kandil, 2018). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that “in line with this legal commitment, Egypt welcomed the presidents and vice-presidents of 15 British universities in March 2018 to discuss the establishment of British universities’ branch campuses” (Bekele, 2018: n.p.). Overall, IBCs are emerging as one of the major modes of internationalization of Egyptian higher education in terms of staff and student mobility, curriculum, research, and language of instruction. The following section highlights the governance and management structures specifically developed for IBCs established on Egyptian soil.

REGULATION OF INTERNATIONAL BRANCH CAMPUSES The new law sets out the standards and procedures for establishing and operating IBCs in Egypt. The law has four parts: General provisions governing the establishment of a branch campus or university institution; the advantages, facilities and obligations of the IBC and the university institution; international branch campuses affairs council; and the IBC cancellation procedures. This section outlines some of the most important provisions from the various sections of the law. The MoHESR takes overall coordination and regulation of IBCs in Egypt. It scrutinizes and studies the applications by universities for the establishment of IBCs. The Minister of the MoHESR is also entitled to establish a Commission which members representatives of concerned State ministries and authorities. The decision issued on the establishment of the Commission “shall determine the conditions and requirements for establishing the international branch campus or institution, and the required scientific level at the Main University” (Republic Presidency, 2018: 3). The Minister presents the Commission decisions to the Cabinet for approval, which will then be issued by virtue of a presidential decree. The “IBC shall have a private legal personality and shall appoint its president after the approval of the concerned Minister (MoHESR), based on the nomination of the Main University, as determined by the IBC bylaws” (ibid.). To serve as his representative and liaison, the Minister appoints an adviser to the IBC. The adviser serves as a “liaison between the concerned governmental authorities and the administration of the branch, in addition to contributing to the supervision of the IBC various activities” (Republic Presidency, 2018: 5). The adviser and a Secretary General are members of the Council which oversees the overall administration of the IBC. The Council monitors and develops “the quality assurance of the educational and research process provided at the branch campuses” (Republic Presidency, 2018: 8). The law also details the advantages, facilities, and obligations the IBCs are required to observe. IBC applications shall include a fee equal to a maximum of 5 percent of the estimated budget approved for the establishment of such a branch; the branch pays an annual fee of 2 percent of the total amount of tuition fees; the fees from IBCs create the

394

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Welfare of the Egyptian Academic Staff and their Assistants at Universities, Institutes and Research Centres affiliated to the MoHESR; the IBC enjoys academic and institutional autonomy and freedom; the Egyptian government shall provide the necessary administrative facilities for the IBC, including to provide the IBC, at its own expense, with the appropriate land plot; compliance with the provisions of the Egyptian laws; IBC rules of students admission shall be the same applied for their admission to the Main University; and IBC shall enrol Egyptian students not be less than half of the total number of students enrolled. — Republic Presidency, 2018 The law also maintains some provisions with regard to curriculum, language, academic staff, and qualifications. The fundamental consideration is that IBCs are mere extensions of the main (foreign or international) universities establishing them. IBCs should inform the MoHESR about their curricula, which must conform to the curricula being taught in the main university. The approval of the ministry is required in case of discrepancies. Moreover, the branch “may deliver educational programs, cultural services and continuous education programs that do not award degrees, such as teaching foreign languages or organizing special studies in economic, social, administrative, literary and artistic sciences, after approval by the Concerned Minister regarding the scientific content of such programs” (Republic Presidency, 2018: 6). IBCs should hire academic staff from the main university, Egypt, or from elsewhere, with the same standards required to teach at the main university. IBC programs should have the same academic qualifications as those taught at the main university and “certificates awarded must be issued by the main university . . . Certification shall be subject to the same procedures and standards of quality and accreditation applied in the host country of the main university” (Republic Presidency, 2018: 7). Although internationalization is generally considered as a strategy for strengthening Egypt’s socio-cultural links and partnerships with the UK (Lane, 2018), primarily economic and academic motives seem to justify the establishment of IBCs in Egypt and international mobility. The IBC’s law maintains that the main university that opens branch campuses in Egypt must be scientifically distinguished, and contribute to the development of education and research in Egypt: Scientifically distinguished international branch campuses may be established, with the aim of developing the higher education and scientific research systems in the Arab Republic of Egypt, and working on strengthening the links between this system and its counterparts in the developed countries and to provide opportunities for higher education within the country, while preserving the national identity of Egyptian students. —Republic Presidency, 2018: 2 Specifically, the MoHESR aims to expand UK–Egypt higher education collaboration to “help Egyptian public and private universities to increase the quality and breadth of their provision, to grow research collaboration, particularly in STEM and translational research” (UUKI, 2018: 3–4). In an attempt to justify transnational education provision by UK universities in Egypt, the Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research argues that “the quality of UK higher education makes British universities stand out as partners which rests on their robust quality assurance processes, their ability to deliver context-relevant programmes, their prioritisation of students’ needs and experience, and

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

395

the diversity of excellent programmes and research across different universities” (ElGhaffar, 2017: n.p.). He further elaborates that IBCs established on Egyptian soil are significant initiatives for: ensuring student access to accreditation, modernizing curricula to meet international standards and supporting the culture of scientific research among university students. This comes in addition to focusing on developing student skills in innovation, creativity and technology, expanding reliance on e-learning, digitizing university education institutions, developing the quality of technological education, linking educational programs with the needs of the labour market, and qualifying graduates to suit the needs of the labour market both in Egypt and abroad. —Al-Youm, 2019: n.p. The direct economic contribution to Egypt of IHE cannot be underestimated. The Minister explained that IBCs in Egypt help to “ultimately develop human resources, boosting revenues, identifying talented students to work in the host country, expanding programs without the need to upgrade home facilities and increasing awareness of different market of higher education in the Middle East” (El-Ghaffar, 2017: n.p.). International student mobility also directly contributes to the Egyptian economy. In 2018–2019 and 2019–2020, international students were expected to respectively add values of 1.25 and 1.5 billion US$ (El-Ghaffar, 2017). Tuition fees expected from international students in Egypt were 400 million US$ in 2018–2019 and 500 million US$ in 2019–2020 (ibid.). Taking into consideration broader and larger societal change processes, theoretical explanations of IHE in Egypt are provided below.

TOWARDS A THEORETICAL EXPLANATION OF IHE IN EGYPT As indicated in the methodology section, this study aspires to interpret the descriptions provided above using relevant theory. The new sociological institutional theories of the phenomenological version (Meyer, 2009, 2010) seem to offer the best possible explanations as to the why and how of IHE in Egypt. A brief introduction of the fundamentals of the theories is provided first, followed by an account of how they explain IHE in Egypt. Institutional theories explain “the rise, nature, and impact of the modern world order or society” (Meyer, 2009: 2). A cultural conception of society voluntarily affecting individuals, nation states and organizations is adopted. The world is “filled with shared understandings of nature, humans, and society” (Meyer, 2009: 3) and has such elements as organizations (the UN and its specialized agencies); nation states (institutionalization of world models); associations, organizations, and social movements; and sciences and the professions (Meyer, Boli, Thomas, and Ramirez, 1997). World society is viewed as stateless, which craves for and legitimizes the formation of such expanded actors (Meyer et al., 1997; Meyer, 2010). Properties of nation states include isomorphism, decoupling, expansive structuration, otherhood, and scientization and rationalization (Meyer et al., 1997; Meyer, 2010). These six concepts satisfactorily explain the IHE in Egypt with regard to the modalities, rationales, and policy provisions available. Within the contexts of the UN Education 2030 Agenda and Egypt Vision 2030, institutional theory explains emerging engagements

396

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and linkages of global, regional, and national actorhoods in the further internationalization and development of higher education in Egypt.

Isomorphism Due partly to voluntary subscription to global models such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), countries become increasingly similar in structure and function (Meyer, 2010). With the motto “Shaping Our Future Together,” the largest world society element, the UN system, requires all its member countries to contribute and conform to its guidelines and operations. Specifically, the SDGs are considered a universal call for action by all countries. Although countries appear to “translate” the SDGs to fit their contexts, they become increasingly similar in their internal structures, arrangements, and ambitions. They seem to hold shared understandings of nature, humanity, education, development, society, and sustainability. Internationalization of higher education is found to be a universal strategy to boost national competitiveness and cooperation among nation states. As an old member of the UN, Egypt has embarked on Egypt Vision 2030, which aspires to meet the SDGs through the initiation, coordination, and regulation of national, regional, and global efforts and resources. Its strategic plan recognizes the critical role higher education plays to meet the SDGs. The IHE is considered as one of the effective strategies for 1) massifying and diversifying the Egyptian higher education system, 2) making it internationally visible and competitive, and 3) meeting the 2030 ambitious goals. Specifically, the aim of establishing “scientifically distinguished international branch campuses” on Egyptian soil is to develop the higher education and scientific research systems and to strengthen “the links between this system and its counterparts in the developed countries” (Republic Presidency, 2018: 2). Egyptian governments increasingly view internationalization as “a means for advancing national policy priorities, driven by a combination of enhancing economic competitiveness and global reputation” (Lane, 2018: 7). The IHE in Egypt is thus a major manifestation of its voluntary (national) subscription to global regimes, the SDGs, and national commitments. The subscription and commitment to the SDGs is viewed as good, and desirable for Egypt. Internationalization presumably “bridges” the disconnect between the 2030 ambitious goals and the limited national and institutional capacities to enact them.

Decoupling There exists a “disjunction between preferred actor identities and the practical activities” (Meyer, 2010: 13). Decoupling between policies and practices is natural, as world models such as the SDGs 1) are elaborated ideals to solve global problems, 2) surpass the capacities of most actors including governments, and 3) face resistance from some actors (Meyer, 2009: 22). Generally, the SDGs are elaborated beyond the socio-economic, cultural, technological, and governance capacities and readiness of nation states in the Global South. In Egypt, graduates with intermediate and advanced education are among the unemployed, as “their skills and knowledge do not fit market needs” (UUKI, 2018: 3). To overcome this, equal access, quality, and competitiveness are identified as the key pillars of the 2030 education strategy. To meet these goals, the Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research identified seven higher education targets: 45 percent gross tertiary enrollment, all higher education institutions to be accredited by NAQAAE4,

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

397

international student numbers to increase by 100 percent, ten institutions in the top 500 world rankings, reduced graduate unemployment, increased graduate satisfaction with labor market opportunities, and growth in graduate entrepreneurship (UUKI, 2018). Egypt recognizes that it does not have the economic capacity, technical expertise, and institutional readiness to meet all these ambitious goals by 2030. Consequently, IHE is considered as one of the effective strategies to fill in the gap. The academic and economic rationales provided to justify the IHE in Egypt, outlined in the findings section, exemplify the decoupling between the 2030 goals and actual implementation capacities. The IHE is considered as a viable strategy for national and institutional capacity building and for directly meeting the 2030 goals.

Expansive Structuration Institutional theory posits that “in an expansive world, the actorhood of individuals, organizations, and national states continually grows” (Meyer, 2010: 11). The proliferation of actor strategies, structures, arrangements, and mechanisms at various levels is a function of 1) the stateless nature of world society, and 2) the perceived or actual disjunction between policies and practices. Egypt has expansive structures and arrangements to regulate its massifying higher education system. The MoHESR takes overall responsibility, setting policies, overseeing implementation, supervising, and coordinating all tertiary education. The Supreme Council of Universities, the Supreme Council of Private Universities, and the Supreme Council of Technical Institutes aid the ministry (Radwan, 2016). The Al-Azhar Institutes Central Administration governs the Al-Azhar University (ibid.). More specifically, the IHE is governed by several structures. The President Office is the highest decision-making organ, which in 2018 promulgated the law on the establishment and operation of IBCs on Egyptian soil. As presented in the previous section of this chapter, the Republic Presidency, the MoHESR, Advisors, the Commission on IBCs membering concerned state authorities, the Cabinet, and the Council of IBCs membering presidents of IBCs are identified as the formal structures that govern and manage the establishment and operation of IBCs. This expanse of structures is presumably meant to meet the academic and economic purposes of internationalization. The emerging and changing nature of IBCs and the absence of previously established structures gave rise to the formation of this expanse of actorhoods. Other actors and forms of internationalization are also acknowledged to play significant roles in meeting the 2030 goals.

Otherhood Institutional theory posits that the emergence of otherhood, other actors, is justified in two major ways: “modern actors themselves often posture as Others, giving disinterested advice based on general principles, and de-emphasizing their own status as interested actors” (Meyer, 2010: 7), and Others are “desperately needed to provide instruction, consulting, and repair, as every actor requires help living up to expanded standards” (Meyer, 2020: 14). Perceived and or actual decoupling between ambitions and practices encourages the enrollment of other actors. Professions and their organizations, consultants and consulting firms, national and supranational nongovernmental associations are forms of Otherhoods (Meyer, 2010). Egypt has bilateral and multilateral cooperation with universities in Europe, the Arab world, Africa, the United States, Canada, and countries in Asia and all over the world (EU,

398

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

2017). Egyptian universities are also members of several regional and international networks such as the Association of Arab Universities; the Universities of the Mediterranean; Association of African Universities; the Islamic States Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; and the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization. Egyptian universities also have cooperation and partnership agreements with international development organizations such as those in the EU, the AU, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, and so forth. The participation of Egypt in Erasmus Mundus and Erasmus+ Mobility actions positively affected the mobility of students and resulted in adopting more flexible measures. To enable Egyptian higher education institutions to meet the ambitious 2030 goals, Otherhoods are presumed to offer scientific, technical, technological, and overall institutional capacity building. Otherhoods are also considered as validators of quality and competitiveness, legitimation and global visibility.

Scientization and Rationalization The tenet of institutional theory has it that the “authority of science to address all sorts of questions has expanded remarkably” (Meyer, 2010: 8). Embracing science and rationalization in agentic actorhood “provides a basis for legitimated cooperation and social control everywhere” (Meyer, 2010: 8). The significance and relevance of IHE in Egypt is elaborated on and justified partly by invoking on arguments linked to the scientization and rationalization of expert work: 1) by their nature, higher education institutions are universal scientific and rational actors; 2) Egypt Vision 2030 and other documents reveal that world society is conceived as a cultural construction of shared understandings and models, which are mainly results of expert, scientific work. The role science and reason play in sustainable development and social justice is elaborated in the documents; 3) to regulate internationalization ambitions, the expertise of structures, Otherhoods, committees, councils, and advisors are capitalized. Overall, the internationalization of Egyptian higher education is justified by resorting to the universal and ubiquitous nature of science and reason. The IBC law affirms that “scientifically distinguished international branch campuses may be established, with the aim of developing the higher education and scientific research systems” (Republic Presidency, 2018: 2). The Minister of the MoHESR argues that higher education internationalization is entrusted for “ensuring student access to accreditation, modernizing curricula to meet international standards and supporting the culture of scientific research among university students” (Al-Youm, 2019: n.p.). The Minister further argues that “the quality of UK higher education makes British universities stand out as partners” for Egypt (El-Ghaffar, 2017). In sum, the analysis of the IHE in Egypt supports the following tentative conclusions: 1) internationalization comes in many guises, including student and staff mobility, transnational education, bilateral and multilateral cooperations and partnerships that transcend institutional boundaries and mandates; 2) internationalization initiatives in Egypt view the world as a cultural conception of society having shared understandings of humanity, science, education, development, and sustainability. Transnational education and its Western curricula are considered as relevant and significant for enhancing the quality and competitiveness of Egyptian higher education; 3) the expanse of structures and arrangements put for observance by IBCs in Egypt implicate that internationalization strengthens state governance of higher education; 4) internationalization presumably compensates for the limitations and shortcomings inherent in domestic higher education

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

399

provisions, by then bridging the gap between the 2030 ambitious goals and the limited implementation capacities. However, this chapter draws primarily on policy documents and secondary sources. More empirical studies are needed to better inform policymaking and planning linked to the IHE in Egypt. Empirical studies that explore the institutional dimensions or aspects of IHE are warranted. Specifically, studying how and to what extent universities are actually fulfilling their internationalization ambitions linked to faculty and student mobility, IBCs, and other modalities is significant. Multimethod studies of the views and experiences of major stakeholders including students, staff, faculty, policymakers and planners, and potential employers could reveal the promises and challenges of internationalization. Not least important is exploring how and to what extent internationalization programs and projects actually contribute to the quality and competitiveness of the Egyptian higher education system.

REFERENCES Alexandria University (2019). Alexandria University. Retrieved from https://www. timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/alexandria-university. Al-Youm, A. (2019). Egypt among 20 most attractive countries for international students. Egypt Independent. Retrieved from https://egyptindependent.com/egypt-among-20-most-attractivecountries-for-international-students-minister/ Atkinson, P., and Coffey, A. (2004). Analyzing documentary realities. In Silverman, D. (ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage Publications, pp. 56–75. AUC (n.d.). History of the American University in Cairo. Retrieved from https://www.aucegypt. edu/about/history Barsoum, S. (2014). The challenges of private higher education in Egypt: The Economic Research Forum, 2014. Retrieved from https://erf.org.eg/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/833_ modified.pdf Bekele, T.A. (2018). Trends in higher education in Egypt. In Bloomsbury Education and Childhood Studies. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350996298.0024 Bohl, D.K., Hanna, T.L., Scott, A.C., Moyer, J.D., Hedden, S.G., Conceição, P., Merlen S., Mizra, T., and Wally, N.M. (2018). Sustainable Development Goals Report: Egypt 2030. Denver, CO and New York, NY: Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures and United Nations Development Programme. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BUE (n.d.). History of the British University in Egypt. Retrieved from https://www.bue.edu.eg/ history/ Cairo University (n.d.). Emergence of the university and its development. Retrieved from https://cu.edu.eg/page.php?pg=contentFront/SubSectionData.phpandSubSectionId=222 CAPMAS (2019). Education, training and scientific research national data. Retrieved from https://www.capmas.gov.eg/Pages/IndicatorsPage.aspx?page_id=6142andind_id=1082 CAPMAS (2020a). Current population of Egypt. Retrieved from: https://www.capmas.gov.eg/ HomePage.aspx CAPMAS (2020b). Unemployment rates in Egypt. Retrieved from: https://www.capmas.gov.eg/ HomePage.aspx Cardno, C. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 24(4): 623–640.

400

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: California: Sage Publications. Diwan, I. (2016). The political effects of changing public opinion in Egypt: A story of revolution. In Sayre, E.A., and Yousef, T.M. (eds), Young Generation Awakening. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 132–150. Durac, V. (2018). Opposition party political dynamics in Egypt from the 2011 revolution to Sisi. In Conduit, D., and Akbarzadeh, S. (eds), New Opposition in the Middle East. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Egypt Today (2019). Higher education’s budget increases LE 7B during the current year. Retrieved from https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/3/73937/Higher-education’s-budgetincreases-LE-7B-during-current-year El-Ghaffar, K.A. (2017). UK transnational education in Egypt: Why and how? Retrieved from https://www.docdroid.net/alkeSFR/egyptian-minister-of-higher-education-presentation.pdf Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Al Azhar University. Available at https://www.britannica.com/ topic/al-Azhar-University. EU (2017). Overview of the higher education system: Egypt. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), Brussels: Belgium. Galal, A., Welmond, M., Carnoy, M., Nellemann, S., Keller, J., Wahba, J., and Yamasaki, I., (2008). The road not traveled: Education reform in the Middle East and North Africa. MENA development report. Washington, DC : World Bank. Retrieved from http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/305951468277186676/The-road-not-travelededucation-reform-in-the-Middle-East-and-North-Africa Hasanen, M., and Nuruzzaman, M. (2013). The new Egypt: Socio-political dynamics and the prospects of the transition to democracy. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n4p137. IMF (2019). The Arab Republic of Egypt and the IMF. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/ Countries/EGY#ataglance IMF and Central Asia Dept. (2019). Arab Republic of Egypt: Fourth review under the extended arrangement under the extended fund facility. Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Arab Republic of Egypt. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/ Publications/CR/Issues/2019/04/05/Arab-Republic-of-Egypt-Fourth-Review-Under-theExtended-Arrangement-Under-the-Extended-Fund-46738 Johnson, D. (2018). Egypt’s long road to education reform. Retrieved from https://timep.org/ commentary/analysis/egypts-long-road-to-education-reform/ Kandil, M.A. (2018). 50 schools to be established in New Administrative Capital. Egypt Today, Sepember 17. Retrieved from http://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/57702/50-schools-to-beestablished-in-New-Administrative-Capital Knight, J. (2019). International programmes and provider mobility (IPPM) in selected African countries: A mapping study of IPPM national policies, regulations and activities. British Council. Lane, J.E. (2018). Importing branch campuses to advance Egypt’s development. International Higher Education, 95: 7–9. Marshall, C. (2000). Policy Discourse Analysis: Negotiating Gender Equity. Journal of Education Policy, 15(2): 125–156. McNamara, J., and Knight, J. (2015). Transnational education data collection systems: Awareness, analysis, action. British Council. Retrieved from https://www2.daad.de/medien/ hochschulen/projekte/studienangebote/2015_tnb_study_daad-bc_2_data_collection.pdf

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

401

Meyer, J.W. (2009). Reflections: Institutional theory and world society. In Kruecken, G., and Drori, G. (eds), World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 36–63. Meyer, J.W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 1–20. Meyer, J.W., Boli, J., Thomas, G.M., and Ramirez, F.O. (1997). World society and the nationstate. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1): 144–181. Middle East Monitor (2019). Egypt is “gateway to Africa and Middle East,” says German official (June 26). Retrieved from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190626-egypt-isgateway-to-africa-and-middle-east-says-german-official/ Mohamed, R.Y., Skinner, M., and Trines, S. (2019). Education system profiles: Education in Egypt. In World Education News + Reviews, World Education Services. Retrieved from https://wenr.wes.org/2019/02/education-in-egypt-2 MoHESR (2018). The Ministry strategy. Retrieved from http://portal.mohesr.gov.eg/ar-eg/ Documents/Strategy_mohesr.pdf MoHESR (2019). Higher education in numbers between 2014–2017. Retrieved from http:// portal.mohesr.gov.eg/en-us/Pages/default.aspx Moody’s (2019). Credit opinion: Government of Egypt—B2 Stable: Regular update. Retrieved from https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Egypt-Government-of-credit-rating-258330 MSA (n.d.). History of MSA University. Retrieved from https://www.msa.edu.eg/msauniversity/ about-msa/welcome-to-msa/history-of-msa MSCI (2017). Market cap indexes. Retrieved from https://www.msci.com/market-capweighted-indexes, https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/9b74d1c0-811d-4c1c-86117867fcdf9ae7 OECD (2010). Reviews of national policies for education: Higher education in Egypt 2010. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/reviews-of-national-policies-foreducation-higher-education-in-egypt-2010_9789264084346-en OECD (2015). Schools for Skills—A new learning agenda for Egypt. Retrieved from: https:// www.oecd.org/countries/egypt/Schools-for-skills-a-new-learning-agenda-for-Egypt.pdf Olssen, M., Codd, J., and O’Neill, A.M. (2004). Policy as text and policy as discourse: A framework for analysis. In Olssen, M., Codd, J., and O’Neill, A.M. (eds), Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy. London: SAGE , pp. 59–72. Prescott, J. (2019). Changing Egypt’s economic perspective. Retrieved from https://www. euronews.com/2019/11/06/changing-egypt-s-economic-perspective PwC (2019). Understanding Middle East education: Egypt Country Profile. PwC Education and Skills Practice. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/m1/en/industries/education/ publications/education-country-profile-egypt.pdf Radwan, M.M. (2016). Arab Republic of Egypt. In Lai, Y.M., Ahmad, A.R., and Wan, C.D. (eds), Higher Education in the Middle East and North Africa: Exploring Regional and Country Specific Potentials. Singapore: Springer Science Business Media, pp. 11–39. Republic Presidency (2018). Law no. 162 of 2018: On the establishment and organization of International Branch Campuses within the Arab Republic of Egypt and university institutions. Egyptian Official Gazette, 31(A), August 2. Schwab, K. (2019). Global Competitiveness Report 2019. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf Standard and Poor’s (2019). Egypt credit rating. Retrieved from: https://tradingeconomics.com/ egypt/rating

402

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Starrett, G. (1998). Putting Islam to Work: Education, Politics and Religious Transformation in Egypt. Berkeley, CA : University of California Press. The Egypt Cabinet (n.d.). Egypt’s Vision 2030. Retrieved January 19, 2020, from: http://www. cabinet.gov.eg:80/English/GovernmentStrategy/Pages/Egypt%E2%80%99sVision2030.aspx The Egyptian Constitution (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.sis.gov.eg/Newvr/Dustor-en001. pdf UN (2016). Egypt sustainable development knowledge platform. Retrieved from: https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/egypt UUKI (2018). Egypt: New international branch campuses law. An information note for UK universities. Retrieved from: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/International/ Documents/2018%20iNote_Egypt%20IBC_final.pdf Wagenaar, H. (2007). Philosophical hermeneutics and policy analysis: Theory and effectuations. Critical Policy Studies, 1(4): 311–341. Walker, W.E., Rahman, S.A., and Cave, J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 128: 282–289. WENR (2019). Education in Egypt. Retrieved from: https://wenr.wes.org/2019/02/educationin-egypt-2 World Bank (2019). World Bank’s Egypt country update October 2019. Retrieved from: https:// www.worldbank.org/en/country/egypt/overview Zambelis, C. (2013). Egypt Turns Quietly to Asia. Middle East Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.mei.edu/publications/egypt-turns-quietly-asia

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE

The Internationalization of Higher Education in Tunisia Bridging Gaps and Cross-border Cooperation MOHAMED SALAH HARZALLAH

INTRODUCTION The internationalization of higher education does not lend itself to one single definition. It has acquired different meanings to the key players of higher education and academics in different countries. Though it is understood by some researchers as being students and staff mobility, international cooperation projects, and transnational higher education (Luijten-Lub, 2007), it is defined by Jones and Reiffenrath (2018) as a process taking place at home while including elements such as internationlized learning outcomes, the hosting of foreign students, informal intercultural activities, culturally inclusive learning environment, and virtual mobility. It is also understood as the process of modernizing study programs while learning from other countries’ experiences. Other specialists in the field of higher education understand it as being the process of establishing education hubs and educations cities (Sehoole and Knight, 2013: 4). In this chapter, internationalization is understood as being a comprehensive concept that incorporates all forms of international or intercultural practices bringing about change at higher education level. In Tunisia, the internationalization of the higher education system is not a new phenomenon as it started in the 1960s with the early forms of exchange between the Tunisian and the French higher education institutions (Bendana, 2012). It is worth noting that the literature on the internationalization of the Tunisian higher education system is very limited. Professor Chabchoub (1999) published an article entitled “Education and Globalisation in Tunisia” in which he reflects on the role of the Tunisian education in the context of globalization. He mainly examines the serious challenges posed by the rapid changes in the world. He also raises questions about the divide between the rich countries of Europe and the poor countries of the south including Tunisia. Additionally, professor Dhaher (2009) has tried to address the subject of internationalization in an article entitled “The Tunisian University between Localism and Internationalization.” However, he mainly focuses on the local role of university as a driver of change in society while neglecting the major forms of internationalization of the Tunisian higher education system. 403

404

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

This chapter provides a contribution to the limited literature on higher education in Tunisia with a special emphasis on the subject of internationalization. It examines all forms of international cooperation that largely contributed to the modernization of the higher education system and ensured the openness of the universities to their international environment. It also attempts to show that the internationalization process in Tunisia is not only affected by national factors but is also subject to the pressures of the international context.

OVERVIEW OF THE TUNISIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM The implementation of the modern Tunisian Higher Education System took place right after the independence of the country from the French colonization in 1956 (Bendana, 2012). It was largely influenced by the vision of the nationalist leader and the first President of the country, Habib Bourguiba, who established a modern Tunisian society. Central to his modernization policy was the development of a good national education system characterized by the building of schools and universities throughout the country (Boukthir, Baklouti, Ouederni, and Mlaoueh, 2017: 5). Education was free at all levels and mandatory at the primary level. Moreover, the post-revolution constitution of 2014 has made education compulsory until the age of sixteen. The constitution also guarantees that education is free for all the citizens at primary, secondary, and higher education levels. According to the constitution, it is the state’s responsibility to provide the necessary resources for the funding of training and teaching in the educational institutions while meeting the standards of quality. The major role of the Tunisian education system is to safeguard the Arabic Islamic identity and to ensure an openness to foreign languages and cultures (Constitution of the Republic of Tunisia, 2015: Article 39). The Tunisian higher education system was officially established under the supervision of the Ministry of Education after the creation of the University of Tunis in 1960. In 1978, the government created the Ministry of Higher Education, which took charge of the higher education system, while the Ministry of Education was in charge of the primary and secondary levels of education (Higher Education decree, 2012, no. 79–293). The total number of public higher education institutions in Tunisia is 203, of which 172 are fully under the supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and thirty-one are under the double-supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and other Ministries such as the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Sports and Youth. All the public institutions are spread over thirteen universities throughout the country. Moreover, there are twentyfive public higher institutes of technological studies established in all the governorates (Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, 2018: 4). In 2018, the number of students in the private higher education institutions reached 31,177 while the number of students in the public higher institutions slightly exceeds a quarter of a million (Bureau des Etudes de la Planification et de Programmation, 2019). The reform of the higher education system in Tunisia started in the year 2000 (Law no. 2000-67 of July 17, 2000). The higher education law 2000-67 stipulated that all universities had to prepare projects and sign contracts with the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, stating the strategic objectives of each university and its rights in terms of funding. Accordingly, the teaching and research activities had to be

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

405

incorporated in the contracts. The law also promoted the openness of the university to its wider environment (ibid.). It is worth noting that the experience of the university projects with the Ministry of Higher Education was not successful. The failure was caused by the fact that the projects were hastily prepared by professors who were neither motivated nor skilled to do that task.1 The efforts of reform and change in the higher education system culminated in the introduction of the Higher Education Law of 2008–19 on February 25, 2008. This law introduced change regarding the way in which training and teaching were carried out as it outlined the need for an extensive cooperation between the social, economic, and cultural environments and the higher education institutions. It sought to establish a society founded on knowledge and science while enhancing the employability of graduates (Higher Education Law of February 25, 2008). The implementation of the three-cycle system started in 2006 and it was fully adopted in 2012. The latter enabled Tunisia to be in line with the radical changes that happened at EU level. The Bologna Declaration initially introduced the three-cycle system, which was adopted later by a large number of countries neighboring the EU (European Higher Education Area, n.d.). The Tunisian higher education system, therefore, embraced the same characteristics of the European higher education systems, which were international comparability, mobility of students, better employability of graduates, quality assurance, national qualifications framework, and Credits Transfer (Higher Education Law of February 25, 2008). More importantly, Tunisia has recently undertaken reform in the higher education system, which is achieved after a wide range of consultations and tensions between the different stakeholders (Dani and Mahieu, 2018: 45). The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research published five major objectives of the strategic plan 2015–2025: 1. The improvement of graduate employability and the quality of training. 2. The improvement of research governance, research human resources management, research infrastructure and research funding. 3. The promotion of good governance and resource management. 4. The review of the university map. 5. The training of newly recruited professors (ibid.). The Strategic Plan weakly addresses the subject of higher education internationalization. Though a deadline is set for the implementation of a number of international cooperation activities, it does not provide information on how these activities could be achieved (Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique, 2015: 5, 15). Most importantly, there is no unified higher education strategy of cooperation converging with the strategies of other ministries to meet the needs of the Tunisian society. As far as the decision-making process at the national level is concerned, the major decision are taken by the Universities Council (UC) whose members are presidents of universities and the ministry’s general directors while being headed by the minister. One of the major roles of the UC is to design the higher education national strategy of research and teaching, which is implemented by the higher education institutions in collaboration with the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. Due to the fact that all higher education diplomas in Tunisia are national diplomas recognized by the Ministry of

See https://www.leaders.com.tn/article/13645-sauvons-l-universite-tunisienne-le-bon-moment-c-est-maintenant

1

406

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Higher Education, the UC not only ratifies the decisions of the Sectorial Committees in charge of the accreditation of all university programs but also accredits the higher education institutions and establishes the rules for the implementation of private higher education. It also supervises the quality of teaching in all public and private higher education institutions (Higher Education Law of February 25, 2008). The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research provides funding to all the public higher education institutions. The directors of institutes and deans of faculties in each university negotiate the budget of their institutions at the local level with the president of the university. The decisions of the latter are ratified at the university level by the University Council, the members of which are all the deans and directors and representatives of teaching staff. After the approval of the University Council, the president of the university negotiates the budget with the minister of higher education (Boukthir et al., 2017: 4). Apart from the state funds, the funds of public universities derive from different sources such as contacts for training and research, donations from private bodies and tuition fees of students (ibid.). Though public higher education institutions are funded from the state budget, private higher education institutions do not receive any form of public funding. They are funded mostly from students’ fees. All forms of spending undertaken by the heads of faculties and institutes in each university are subject to the prior approval of the supervisor of public expenditure who belongs to the Ministry of Finance. The lengthy bureaucratic procedure of budget use hampered the good implementation of international projects in the Tunisian universities.

APPROACHES TO THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA The Tunisian higher education involvement in the internationalization process relies on a number of activities undertaken by both the General Directorate of International Cooperation in the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and the International Relations Offices in the universities. Internationalization touches on all aspects of the higher education system. It includes activities such as joint-supervision of PhD dissertations, academic mobility, the implementation of international programs and institutions, the development of quality assurance, international cooperation, internationalization of higher education research, and IHE and ICT. The following sections dwell on each of these manifestations of IHE in the Tunisian context.

Joint Supervision of PhD Dissertations All Tunisian universities have many agreements of joint supervision of PhD dissertations involving Tunisian professors and foreign professors in other countries. The joint supervision entails that students should be enrolled in both the Tunisian university and the foreign university while getting a double diploma after the defense of their PhD research (Decree no. 2013-47 of 4 January 2013). Joint-supervision projects have contributed to the internationalization of Tunisian higher education institutions as they are built on the principle of institutional trust and the recognition of the credentials of Tunisian students. During the joint supervision, students spend periods of research in the two partner institutions. In some cases, the students’ mobility is funded by one or both institutions of the joint-supervision agreement. There is also a national scholarship for the best PhD researchers involved in double-supervision projects called “alternation scholarship,” which grants a

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

407

funding for a research period of six months in the foreign universities. This competitive funding, which is provided in the framework of an annual call made by the universities under the supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, could be granted only twice to each researcher during the whole period of research at master’s and PhD levels (Higher Education Decree no. 2012-2392, October 9, 2012). An examination of the number of international projects of joint and double degrees at bachelor’s and master’s levels in the Tunisian universities reflects the limited involvement of the latter in such projects. Due to the fact that there is an absence of official statistical data published by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research on international double and joint degrees,2 we rely on the information found on the websites of the universities. The websites of the universities of Monastir and Carthage,3 for example, show that they have two current projects, while the websites of Tunis, Manouba, Kairouan, Sousse, Jendouba, Al Manar, Zitouna, Gafsa, Virtual University of Tunis and Sfax universities show that they have no projects at all.4 Contrary to the public universities, the private universities in Tunisia have shown better involvement in international projects of joint and double degrees which represent the means through which they could show the good quality of teaching and attract national and international students (Mazzella, 2006: 237). Many private universities such as Université Européenne de Tunis and Polytechnique de Sousse provide joint and double degrees in the framework of international cooperation with foreign universities.5

Professors’ Mobility The visiting professors scheme provided an opportunity for the Tunisian universities to host foreign professors in different fields to teach Tunisian students and take part in scientific events (Higher Education Decree no. 93-1825). The incoming mobility of professors from foreign universities is funded from the budget of higher education institutions. Apart from the fact that the visiting professors’ scheme enables students to benefit from the expertise of foreign professors while promoting openness and crosscultural dialogue, the visiting professors experience often led to other forms of cooperation such as joint-degrees or joint research projects. In addition to the incoming mobility of visiting professors, Tunisian universities are involved in outgoing mobility of Tunisian professors to the foreign universities. This kind of mobility is monitored by the higher education institutions involved in different forms of partnerships and is not subject to central planning at the level of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. Despite the importance of this type of mobility, neither the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research nor the universities publish figures on the number of outgoing and incoming professors.6 In fact, there is no See www.mes.tn Please see the website of the University of Monastir (http://www.um.rnu.tn/fr/coop%c3%a9ration/conventions/ conventions-en-cours/?rech=1andNom=andTypeS=Convention%20double%20dipl%c3%b4meandpays=andd ateDeb=anddatefin=) and that of the University of Carthage (http://www.ucar.rnu.tn/Fr/liste-des-co-diplomesde-l-universite-de-carthage-avec-les-universites-francaises_11_892). 4 Please see the link for all the list of Tunisian public universities http://www.annuaire.rnu.tn/ 5 See the website of the Université Européenne de Tunis: https://universiteeuropeenne.tn/2019/03/28/ officialisation-de-la-double-diplomation-et-la-delocalisation-de-lenap-canada-a-siences-po-tunis/ and the one of Polytechnique Sousse: https://polytecsousse.tn/demande-de-stage/partenaires-internationaux/ 6 The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research’s website does not mention data on outgoing Tunisian professors. Nor does it mention the number of incoming visiting professors. See http://www.mes.tn/ 2 3

408

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

real tradition of statistical data collection and publication on the websites of the universities.

Students’ Mobility The internationalization process of higher education institutions partly relies upon the mobility of students at all levels of the three-cycle system. There are two major types of mobility, which are international credit mobility and ministry-funded overseas mobility. As far as the international credit mobility is concerned, it consists of the granting of scholarships to bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD students of public and private universities to spend periods of study abroad ranging from one semester to one year. It is called international credit mobility as the credits acquired for the courses during the period of study abroad are recognized by the home institutions of students.7 The major source of funding of the mobility projects is the key action 1 of the Erasmus+ program called International Credit Mobility. In 2017, the number of scholarships reached 1,200 (Conseil de l’Union européenne, 2018) while the overall number of scholarships for the period 2015–2017 exceeded 3,100 for staff and students. More importantly, the number of scholarships allocated to Tunisia includes outgoing mobility from Tunisian to European universities and incoming mobility from European to Tunisian universities. An inquiry undertaken by the Erasmus+ Office of Tunisia in 2017 has shown that master’s and PhD students are more interested in international mobility opportunities than are the bachelor’s students. It has also shown that the reluctance of some bachelor’s students to seek mobility was mainly caused by their fear from an international experience away from home.8 Moreover, the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research grants Tunisian students scholarships for MA and PhD studies in European and North American countries. The selection of students is based on a transparent procedure as calls for scholarships are published on the Ministry’s website.9 The evaluation of the applications is carried by special committees established by the minister of higher education. The funding of the research grants and scholarships derive from both public funds and the funds allocated by foreign countries to the Tunisian universities as part of the bilateral agreements.

Capacity Building International Partnerships: Tempus and Erasmus+ The internationalization of higher education institutions in Tunisia and the implementation of joint programs are partly carried out through the capacity building Erasmus+ projects. The Erasmus+ program, being EU-funded, provides a unique tool of internationalization. Tunisian universities have been offered the opportunity to be involved in EU-funded

A learning agreement is signed by the student, the leadership of his own university and the one of the foreign university before the period of study abroad. This agreement provides details on the length of the study period, amount of funding and the credits to be acquired after the successful completion of the courses to be attended by the student. 8 The inquiry was carried out by myself while contacting the directors of the international relations offices of five universities (Jendouba, Monastir, Kairouan, Sfax, and Gabès). My major objective was to reach a deep understanding of the management of mobility projects in order to enhance the universities’ involvement in Erasmus+. The findings of the inquiry were presented to the French universities in the National Erasmus+ information day in December 2015. See: http://www.agence-erasmus.fr/docs/2184_national-erasmus-officetunisie-enjeux-de-la-mobilite-internationale.pdf 9 All the scholarships offers are published on the Ministry’s website. See www.mes.tn 7

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

409

FIGURE 25.1: Erasmus+ capacity building higher education projects 2015–2017. Source: Adapted from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/library/information-capacity-buildingprojects-in-field-higher-education_en

university projects involving large consortia of universities from EU countries, the Southern Mediterranean region, Central Asia, and other regions (EU Commission, 2019). The establishment of the National Tempus Office in July 2013, which was renamed the National Erasmus+ Office, has had a significant contribution to the internationalization process of Tunisian universities. Figure 25.1 shows that the latter have become involved in multi-country capacity building projects which reformed the higher education system and led to the implementation of new programs of study. Though there are many accepted Erasmus+ projects each year, the major challenge of Tunisian universities lies in the mismatch between the national rules of budget use and the guidelines for the use of the grant of the program. More importantly, the Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research should make an evaluation of the real impact of the EU-funded programs on the Tunisian universities. The Tempus program was initially introduced in Tunisia in 2002 at a time when the Ministry of Higher Education started the reform of the higher education system. It used the Tempus program to undertake serious reforms while embracing the principles of the Bologna Declaration. The early involvement in Tempus enabled Tunisia to lay the ground for the implementation of the three-cycle system and the Credit Transfer System. The introduction of structural changes was mostly carried out through the involvement of Tunisia in twenty capacity-building structural projects that were implemented during the periods of Tempus III and Tempus IV (2002–2013). Additionally, Tunisian universities have benefited from the involvement in forty-eight joint projects established in the framework of multi-country partnerships between Tunisian universities and EU universities, as well as partnerships of regional cooperation between the two shores of the Mediterranean.10 The Tempus projects signaled the start of a serious internationalization process enabling Tunisian universities to forge strong relationships covering most of the issues related to the modernization of the higher education system. Critics of the EU-funded programs including Tempus believe that the Tunisian universities have not benefited enough from the EU funds while raising questions on the extent of the impact that Tempus brought about. They also believe that the Tempus projects, being EU funded and mostly coordinated by EU universities, did not seriously address local issues. 10 See https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/library/information-capacity-building-projects-in-field-highereducation_en

410

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

International Programs and Institutions One of the major aspects of the internationalization of the Tunisian higher education system is the establishment of study programs fully taught in English. This represents a radical departure from the common study programs, which are either taught in Arabic or French. There has been a recent tendency in many public and private higher education institutions to introduce study programs in English. This reflects an awareness of the fact that the internationalization of the Tunisian higher education system could be achieved only via the English language, which is more spread than the French language. There is a widespread belief that Tunisian students could have better employment opportunities in Tunisia and abroad if they hold diplomas of English-taught programs. Multinational companies as well as many national companies do require their staff to have a good level of the English language (Ayadi, 2018). A case in point is the establishment of the Tunisia Business School (TBS) by the government as a way of internationalizing the higher education system. Unlike the rest of public higher education institutions, the teaching language in TBS is English. The school includes the specializations of finance, information technology, business analytics, international political economy, accounting, and marketing (Tunis Business School, 2019: 5). One of the objectives of the school is to educate future leaders not only for the national context but also for the global one. Policymakers also believed that the establishment of an international business school meeting the standards of the American higher education system would bring about a positive impact on the Tunisian economy. In addition to teaching and research, the school disseminates innovative management practices and provides training to companies (ibid.). Despite the strong political support for the establishment of the school, its diplomas were officially recognized nine years after its creation (Governmental decree 2019-162 of February 18, 2019). Contrary to the three-cycle system, which is implemented in all the higher education institutions except for the faculties of medicine and the schools of engineering, education in the Tunis Business School at bachelor’s level lasts four years instead of three (ibid.). Moreover, the school adopts the American grading system ranging from A to F grades while the grading system in the rest of the public higher education institutions is similar to the French one, which extends from 0 to 20. There are also different designations for the four teaching levels of the school. The four years are called, consecutively, Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, and Senior (ibid.). Central to the school’s internationalization strategy is the establishment of a highly qualified group of researchers who are involved in innovative and high-quality research topics responding to the needs of the national economy and the changes in the international one. The school also seeks to maintain an excellent level of teaching, combining updated theoretical knowledge and most recent applications of theories. Article twenty-five of the School’s decree stipulates that the school’s scientific council recognizes international mobility periods for the students of the school in the framework of partnerships with foreign universities (ibid.). It is worth noting that there are many private higher education institutions which have fully taught English programs. There are also institutions combining French and English as the major languages of teaching while being involved in international partnerships of students’ mobility and double degrees. The High School of Aeronautics and Technologies, for example, has many international partners in Canada, the United States, and Europe. It provides an internationally recognized education in the fields of Aerodynamics, Materials, Aircraft Mechanics, Navigation, etc. Furthermore, the school is involved in joint projects and double degree projects with many European higher education institutions (Ecole Supérieure de l’Aéronautique et des technologies, n.d.).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

411

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION The legal framework for quality assurance in Tunisia was initially established by the law 2008-19 of February 25, 2008. On September 14, 2012, decree 2012-1719 established the National Evaluation, Quality Assurance and Accreditation Authority (NEQAAA) with a governance structure being made up of the Council, two departments, and a permanent secretariat office (Higher Education Decree no. 2012-1719). The establishment of the quality assurance culture in Tunisia has been largely influenced by the international context, notably the European experience. Prior to the creation of the NEQAAA, Tunisian universities have benefited from the experience and expertise of European universities in the framework of the Tempus project Aqi-Umed (2010–2013) (Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie, n.d.). Tunisian professors were taught how to undertake internal evaluation missions in their institutions while relying on the international experience in the field of quality assurance. As far as the international programs of study are concerned, they are subject to the evaluation of the NEQAAA. The latter is also involved in multi-country projects of the Erasmus+ program as an internal evaluator and is responsible for the quality assurance procedure. It is, for example, responsible for the quality assurance work package of the EU-Funded Erasmus+ project, Sagesse, which seeks to improve governance in the Tunisian universities (Sagesse, n.d.).

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION During the last decade, higher education in Tunisia has undergone serious changes, including the increase in the number of public higher education institutions, the emergence of the private higher education system, the establishment of the quality assurance agency, the establishment of a strategic plan, and the attempt to modernize programs along with the quality of teaching. These developments have been inspired by not only the changes at the national level, such as the move from a non-democratic political system to a democratic one (Constitution of the Republic of Tunisia, preamble), but also by international developments and new higher education tendencies (European Higher Education Area, n.d.). International cooperation and the internationalization of higher education have played an important role in introducing changes to the higher education system. The framework of international cooperation relies on the central planning and activities of the Directorate General of International Cooperation at the level of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and the Offices of International Cooperation at the level of each university. While the Directorate General of International Cooperation signs international agreements with foreign ministries so as to implement cooperation projects at national level in the public universities, the International Cooperation Offices in the universities sign cooperation agreements with the foreign universities.11 Therefore, the international activities at the university level are subject to both the central planning of the Ministry and the cooperation initiatives and activities undertaken by the leadership of each university. Despite the absence of a strategy of internationalization, the Directorate General of International Cooperation in the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and the international cooperation offices in See www.mes.tn

11

412

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

all the Tunisian universities have shown active involvement in international projects. Accordingly, Tunisia has been able to forge long-term relations of higher education projects with many countries in different regions of the world, notably the Arab and Euro-Mediterranean countries, Asia, Africa, and America (Direction Générale de la Coopération Internationale, 2019).

Cooperation with Arab Countries and Europe Tunisia has many agreements with international bodies active in the field of education in the MENA region such as the Arab Maghreb Union, which is a political and economic organization established by the five countries of the Maghreb in 1989.12 Tunisia also has projects with the Organization of the Arab League for Education, Culture and Science. Among those projects, we find the creation of innovation and research area and a training of trainers project in the field of pedagogy for the Gulf countries (Agence Tunisienne de Coopération Technique, 2019). Central to the cooperation with the Arab countries is the provision of support and transfer of expertise to the partners of Tunisia in the MENA region. Tunisia has contributed to the establishment of higher education and health institutions in many countries such as Qatar where Tunisian experts provided expertise for the creation of a medical campus. More importantly, Gulf countries’ universities have shown an interest in recruiting Tunisian professors at different levels while offering generous salaries. According to the Tunisian Agency of Technical Cooperation, the number of Tunisians recruited abroad through the agency reached 18,984 in March 2019. The report of the agency also stated that cooperation takes place mostly with the Gulf countries (ibid.). It is worth noting that Tunisia has been involved in an Arab European consortium of higher education called 5+5 as it involves five countries from Europe and five countries from North Africa.13 An agreement has been signed between the consortium partners and a list of activities has been identified in order to share expertise and experience in different fields. The partnership also includes the implementation of staff and students mobility. The major objective of the 5+5 consortium is to enhance cooperation in the fields of research, innovation and training, social inclusion, and the creation of new opportunities for the youth of the Mediterranean region (Le Dialogue 5+5, 2017). However, the implementation of the partnership activities is very slow due to the limited funding allocated to the projects. Indeed, the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research has published very few partnership offers for the universities in the framework of 5+5 Dialogue.14 Additionally, all Tunisian universities have agreements with many European universities, notably France, which is a traditional partner. There are also extensive forms of cooperation with other European countries such as Germany, the UK, Spain, Poland, Italy, Greece, and others. Apart from the agreements of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, all universities have partnerships with European universities (Direction Générale de la Coopération Internationale, 2019). There are different forms of cooperation such as double degree projects, exchange of staff and students, double

Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Morocco, and Libya. The five European countries are France, Malta, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. The five countries of North Africa are Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania. 14 See the website of the Ministry: www.mes.tn 12 13

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

413

supervision of PhDs and joint-research projects. The funding of Tunisian European projects comes from different sources such as the EU, the European universities, European and international bodies, as well as the joint funding of projects by Tunisian and European universities. Tunisia Spanish cooperation, for example, includes formal and informal ways of learning. Spain offers Tunisian students scholarships at MA and PhD levels, along with research grants for short periods of stay. There are also grants for summer language courses in Spain and fully funded periods of stay for translators of Spanish. Apart from the formal academic exchange, Spain provides grants for cultural dialogue and exchange of expertise such as the provision of training to the librarians (Direction Générale de la Coopération Internationale, 2005). More importantly, the Tunisian cooperation in the field of Erasmus+ is extensive.15

Cooperation with African Countries The cooperation with African countries, notably Sub-Saharan countries, dates back to 1970 when agreements were signed between Tunisia and its African partners (Direction Générale de la Coopération Internationale, 2019). The partnerships included student exchanges and students scholarships. The number of newly registered students in public higher education institutions from African countries was 544 in the academic year 2017– 2018. The highest number of enrollments is from the Ivory Coast as the number of students reached 100 (ibid.). Tunisia has also signed agreements with Mali, Burkina Faso, and Djibouti. These agreements have four major objectives: 1. Tunisian university professors and higher education experts provide support and training of trainers to the universities of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Djibouti in different areas such as Maths, Chemistry, Medecine, IT, and Legal Studies. 2. The revision of the scholarships framework by focusing on MA students from Mali and BA students from Burkina Faso. 3. The increase of student mobility. 4. The establishment of Tunisian private universities in Djibouti (Kapitalis, 2017). Contrary to the formal framework of cooperation between Tunisia and its sub-Saharanpartners, the rapidly growing private higher education institutions are attractive to foreign students who choose Tunisia as their higher education destination. A recent study has made an estimate of about 6,250 foreign students in the private and public higher education institutions and an estimate of a few thousand in the training institutions of the Ministry of Work and Training. The study also states that 75 percent of foreign students are from sub-Saharan Africa while 25 percent are from the Maghreb. The rate of foreign students in the private universities is 13.6 percent out of the whole student population. However, foreign students make only 0.9 percent of the overall number of students in the public universities (Claessens, 2018). Despite the fact that Europe is the major destination of Sub-Saharan students, it has been losing ground to Tunisia, which has become in recent years one of their five destinations (ibid.). The Tunisian culture, which is a mixture of Arab Muslim culture and Western culture, the recognition of Tunisian diplomas abroad, the low students’ fees, and the good quality of teaching act as pull factors that attract African students to the country. See the section on the capacity building higher education projects.

15

414

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Cooperation with Asia Regarding the cooperation with Asia and America, Tunisia seeks new partnerships with an added value to the fields of scientific research, technology, and innovation (Direction Générale de la Coopération Internationale, 2019). In July 2019, many cooperation workshops were organized in Tunis between Tunisia and Korea so as to enhance cooperation in the field of higher education and research. The workshops were part of a series of cooperation events that have taken place throughout the last decade in both countries. The Korean Institute of Political and Technological Sciences and the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, represented by the State Secretary of Research, presidents of universities, representatives of research labs and units, representatives of the Tunisian National Agency of Research Promotion, and representatives of Small and Medium Enterprises, held a cooperation workshop in order to enable Tunisia to learn from the technology transfer experience of Korea and to establish joint cooperation (Agence Nationale de Promotion de la Recherche Scientifique, n.d.). Moreover, the Tunisian–Korean cooperation also includes the exchange of students and teaching staff (ibid.). China is also one of the major partners of Tunisia, as cooperation incorporated formal and informal ways of exchange such as students and staff exchange and the establishment of China Cultural Centre in Tunis. On June 19, 2019, an agreement was signed in order to enhance the Tunisian–Chinese cooperation (Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique, 2019). On September 2–3, 2019, thirty-one Chinese universities held a huge event called China Campus, during which they offered scholarships to Tunisian students. Moreover, the Tunisian and Chinese universities held networking meetings during the event (ibid.).

Cooperation with North America There has been a recent growing interest from both Tunisia and Canada to enhance cooperation at higher education level. Eight agreements have been signed between the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and the Canadian universities. The cooperation incorporates the mobility of students at master’s and PhD levels, professors’ mobility and researchers’ mobility. The Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and the eight Canadian universities also implemented PhD jointsupervision procedures and scholarships for Tunisian students (Agence Nationale de la Promotion de la Recherche Scientifique, n.d.). Furthermore, cooperation with the United States is extensive as Tunisian students and professors benefit from a wide range of USfunded programs such as Thomas Jefferson, Fulbright program, Cochran program, etc. (U.S. Embassy in Tunisia, n.d.).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH Tunisia is ranked sixtieth in the world and first in Africa in terms of scientific publications (Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et la Recherche Scientifique, 2017: 4). The country has forty research centers, thirty-seven doctoral schools, and 324 research units and over 20,000 researchers (ibid.). Moreover, the number of senior professors known as A category represents about 14 percent of the total researchers in the country (ibid.).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

415

Central to the reform process of the higher education system is the enhancement of the quality of research and the dissemination of its results with an emphasis on its impact upon the society (Dani and Mahieu, 2018: 43). It is worth noting that a new trend of reform started after the revolution of 2011 emphasizing the relevance of research to its environment. In 2017, the Ministry of Higher Education embraced a strategy of internationalization and innovation in research. Therefore, a commission involving twenty representatives from different sectors was established under the supervision of the Ministry in order to provide recommendations on the best ways to promote the innovation and the internationalization of research. Apart from researchers and academics, the commission involved representatives of the key players in the economy such as the employers union, the Tunisian General Labour Union, the Ministry of Industry, the Agency of Industry promotion and Innovation, etc. (ibid.). The commission made three major suggestions. First, it was suggested that areas of innovation should be established in the universities and the technology transfer centers known as technoparks. Second, the commission recommended the establishment of a research academy to train the researchers. Third, the establishment of a committee of experts to monitor applied science projects (ibid.). It is worth noting that the recommendations of the Commission have resulted in the enhancement of the universities’ cooperation with the industry. In fact, the national technology transfer day and the different events of technology transfer, organized every year by the universities throughout the academic year, provide an opportunity for researchers, inventors, students, graduates, employers, and small and medium enterprises to be engaged in an extensive collaboration (National Day of Technology Transfer, 2018). Tunisia has established its own national research priorities through a bottom-up approach involving a wide range of stakeholders amounting to 2,000 persons. The way in which the priorities were established echoed the democratic atmosphere that has been prevalent in the country since the events of 2011.16 The consultation of the different stakeholders started in November 2016 and ended in May 2017 (ibid.). It was carried out through different activities: an online consultation open to everyone, two workshops on the methodology of identifying the research priorities, a national conference, and three regional workshops. The consultation involved different categories of stakeholders such as researchers, civil society members, representatives of the industry and administrative staff. Four criteria are adopted to identify the priorities: 1. The real or potential added value of research such as contribution to sustainable development, positive discrimination, quality of life, research excellence, employability, etc. 2. The level of alignment with the sectorial strategies, national plans, and international agreements. 3. Feasibility of research, which takes into account availability of resources and the capacity to implement research projects in the national or international contexts. 4. The level of need for research (risks for the state, terrorism, epidemics, natural catastrophes and electronic threats (ibid.: 5). The consultation brought about six major priorities, each of which has a set of subpriorities. The priorities established by the Ministry are: It was the year when the “Jasmin” Revolution took place.

16

416

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

1. Water, energy, and food security 2. Societal project: education, culture, and youth 3. Citizens’ health 4. Digital and industrial transition 5. Governance and devolution 6. Circular economy. Though the final report of the consultation outlines the need for better engagement in international projects, it does not address the problem of mismatch between the national rules of budget use and those of the European Union or other international funding bodies. After being granted a competitive funding in higher education or research projects, Tunisian universities find it difficult to use the budgets allocated to their projects due to the fact that national rules of budget use have not been adjusted to the changing environments of international cooperation and internationalization (Dani and Mahieu, 2018: 57–58). Accordingly, there is an urgent need for the implementation of a legislative framework that enhances international cooperation and subsequently a better internationalization of the Tunisian higher education institutions. It is to be noted that the Tunisian research system relies heavily on international projects and funding. The Tunisian active involvement in the internationalization process stems from the need to respond to the changing environment of research, which requires international partnerships. Table 25.1 shows that the number of international research projects is higher than the national research projects. It also shows that the level of funding of international projects is about three times the national funding of research. The divide between the national and the international funding reflects the policymakers’ unwillingness to invest in research. Given the high number of research labs and research units in Tunisia, the national funds available are too low to enable researchers to be really engaged in innovative and high-quality research projects. Though research is largely shaped by the financial constraints of the national context, it is also subject to the pressures of the international one, which makes Tunisian research institutions and researchers respond to the internationalization process.

TABLE 25.1 Research projects in Tunisia Abbreviation

Description

National programs FRP PEJC

Federated research projects Support Projects for Young Researchers

Multi/bi-lateral programs WJPA Waterworks (Water JPI) ERANETMED PRIMA Partnership for research and innovation in the Mediterranean area PHC-Utique Tunisia–France bi-lateral program PICS Tunisia–France bi-lateral program Joint International Lab Tunisia–France bi-lateral program CMPTM Tunisia–Morocco bi-lateral program PHC-Maghreb Partenariat Hubert Curien France–Maghreb Source: Dani and Mahieu, 2018: 60–61.

Budget 2018 (TND) 804,000 4,000 800,000 3,327,971 900,000 1,106,771 200,000 732,200 10,000 55,000 175,000 149,000

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

417

One of the major forms of the internationalization of research is Tunisia’s involvement in the European program H2020, which is the biggest program that the EU has ever had in the field of research. The program seeks to transfer theoretical knowledge into practical use in the industry and society at large (Délégation de l’Union européenne en Tunisie, 2017: 36). It benefits from a first-stage funding of about eighty billion euros for the period 2014–2020. In January 2015, Tunisia formally requested to join H2020 as an associate partner instead of being a simple partner. A year later, the Tunisian parliament ratified the agreement of association. The latter was the first of its kind in the Arab countries and the North African region. Under the framework of the agreement, Tunisia was granted in 2017 a special funding of sixty million euros called EMORI (ibid.). The major objectives of the latter were the improvement of the performance of education at all its levels, the amelioration of graduate employability, the promotion of entrepreneurship, and innovation in research (ibid.).

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND ICT One of the major characteristics of the Tunisian higher education system is its reliance on ICT, manifested by the foundation of the Virtual University of Tunis in 2002. This provides distance learning to leaners in different areas and at the different levels of the three-cycle system. Moreover, it is responsible for the coordination of all the ICT-based courses in the higher education institutions (Virtual University of Tunis, 2016: 6). Its major tasks are the following: 1. The implementation of transversal teaching units which include IT, English, entrepreneurship, etc. 2. Training of professors, technicians, and trainers in the field of ICT. 3. The provision of distance learning via the Moodle platform. 4. The provision of services in a digital lab and videoconferencing centers. Though initially founded to introduce ICT-based teaching in the public higher education institutions, there has recently been a growing awareness regarding the role of the Virtual University in the internationalization of the Tunisian higher education system (ibid.). A recently published strategic plan on the website of the university outlines both the need to support innovation in teaching and to play a leading role at the international level (ibid.). There has been a move from a focus on the use of ICT solely at the national level to an openness to the international context (ibid.). Accordingly, the university has established ICT-based courses open to national and international learners under the form of MOOCs. Moreover, the university has recently signed agreements with African and Arab universities regarding projects of digital teaching. In 2018, it organized the Pan African consortium of digital training, which involved twenty-five universities from thirteen countries. The event provided the Virtual University with an opportunity to share its experience in digital learning with the representatives of the consortium (Agence Tunis Afrique Presse, 2018). In addition to the role of the Virtual University, ICT-based forms of cooperation do exist in the rest of Tunisian universities. Many university professors resort to the use of videoconferencing equipment in order to lecture students in foreign universities. Videoconferencing tools are also used to enable Tunisian students to attend lectures delivered by foreign professors. It is worth noting that all universities have videoconferencing rooms (Centre de Calcul El-Khawarizmi, 2017).

418

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

One of the most effective tools of the internationalization of the Tunisian higher education is the use of remote labs. Such technology has been implemented in the framework of the previous capacity-building higher education European program, Tempus. The Tempus project EOLES largely contributed to the internationalization of Tunisian higher education. In fact, the Tunisian partner universities in the project initially benefited from the expertise and experience of European professors and institutions (Malaoui, Kherallah, Ghomri, Andrieu, Fredon, and Barataud, 2018: 149–158). The project consisted of a one year teaching at the third year bachelor’s in the field of electronics and Optics Embedded Systems (ibid.). Due to the international character of the project, the teaching was carried out in English in the universities of the consortium, including the Tunisian ones. The project was funded for a period of three years and involved a consortium of fifteen higher education institutions from both Europe and North Africa. The majority of partners belong to the Mediterranean region.17 During the implementation of the project, students were allowed to register in two institutions of the consortium and to receive a double degree after their graduation (ibid.). In an attempt to ensure the sustainability of the EOLES project’s results, the partner universities included the project as part of their official programs. The training of academic, administrative, and technical staff in the partner countries’ institutions in e-learning, English language, and remote laboratory development also ensured the sustainability of the study program. More importantly, the course implementation was supervised by a group of international experts of embedded systems and e-learning methodologies who shared their expertise with the Tunisian professors (EOLES, n.d.). Another Tempus project, E-Science, Réseau Maghrébin de Labouratoires à distance (E-Science, Maghreb Network of remote labs), has also contributed to the internationalization of higher education through the creation of a network of remote labs in the North African countries. This project used the results of the EOLES project in order to ensure a better implementation of remote labs in the Tunisian universities. Apart from Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, the consortium of the project included European universities from France, Greece, Romania, and Austria. One of the major objectives of the project was the modernization of teaching while relying on ICT-based courses. It also trained technicians and engineers in the use of remote labs. They learned, for example, the way they could interconnect the Learning Management System in the context of remote lab architecture (Tsiatos et al., 2014: 15–20). Professors also benefited from the project through training and the development of teaching units while interacting with all the members of the consortium. More importantly, the implementation of the remote labs was combined with a study of the real needs of the learners and the assessment of their ICT-based learning experience. Undoubtedly, the assessment of the learning experience represents one of the major features of internal quality control, which is carried out through the use of paperbased knowledge test and online questionnaires (Tsiatos et al., 2014: 15–20).

FUTURE ASPIRATIONS AND DIRECTIONS OF THE TUNISIAN GOVERNMENT The future aspirations and directions of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research incorporate actions regarding the internationalization of both higher education and research.

The project’s partners were Algeria, Belgium, France, Morocco, Portugal, Romania, and Tunisia.

17

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

419

The major directions and aspirations in the field of higher education training and teaching rely on the promotion of the Tunisian higher education system abroad while enhancing the number of mobility and capacity building projects (Direction Générale de la Coopération Internationale, 2019). The ministry also seeks to get rid of the bureaucratic restrictions related to the enrollment of foreign students in the public higher education institutions (ibid.). Due to the absence of adequate services leading to a better internationalization of the higher education system, one of the future directions is the improvement of international cooperation services (ibid.). The ministry plans to establish a national agency for the provision of services to the incoming and outgoing mobile students. It also seeks to establish clear guidelines and procedures for hosting the incoming students. Apart from the enhancement of the Tunisian involvement in competitive projects, there is a willingness to establish a regional mobility program for the Maghreb countries (ibid.). Central to the future directions of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research is the modernization of study programs in order to improve the graduates’ employability. More importantly, the Ministry intends to organize summer language trainings and training sessions in soft skills in order to provide the labor market with the skills required by employers (ibid.). The evaluation of higher education research system and the establishment of national priorities have enabled Tunisia to have a future-oriented set of actions to be undertaken in order to reach a better impact of research on society and a better internationalization of research institutions. The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research’s report on research priorities shows that there are four future aspirations and directions (Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique, 2017: 12–15). The first direction outlines the need for governance reform of the national system of research and innovation. It suggests the establishment of national agency of research in charge of all research activity in the country. The second direction is about the improvement of the funding, management, and evaluation of research. The third direction seeks to improve the internal governance and the quality assurance of the research institutions. It also seeks to ensure the transfer of the results of PhD research to the wider socio-economic environment. The fourth direction seeks to achieve technology transfer and knowledge dissemination, researchers’ and student mobility in the industry, support of startups implementation and the promotion of the culture of intellectual property protection (Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique, 2017: 12–15).

CONCLUSION Tunisia has a rich network of international partners with whom it has been actively involved in the internationalization process. Its partnerships cover most of the areas of higher education and research. However, the internationalization of Tunisian universities and the higher education system occurred as part of the processes of globalization that transcend national borders while opening up to foreign universities. It took place in a rather ad hoc manner responding to the demands of the partners and the adjustment of those demands to the national needs. It was driven by the changes at the international level, notably the European one due to the geographic proximity of the country to Europe and the long-standing ties of cooperation. The context of the development of the Bologna Declaration has undoubtedly led to changes at higher education level not only in Tunisia but also in all the countries neighboring the EU. More importantly, the higher education system in Tunisia needs to have a unified strategy of internationalization that incorporates

420

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

both higher different ministries. Therefore, the role of the higher education system should not be in isolation from the government’s strategic planning. It should rather support the government’s efforts to modernize society and achieve economic progress.

REFERENCES Agence Nationale de la Promotion de la Recherche Scientifique (n.d.). Tunisian Korean cooperation: Improvement of the national system of innovation (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: http://www.anpr.tn/cooperation-tuniso-coreenneamelioration-du-systeme-national-de-transfert-de-technologie/ (accessed September 20, 2019). Agence Tunis Afrique Presse (2018). More than 25 representatives of universities attend the Panafrican consortium of digital training (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: https://www.tap.info.tn/fr/Portail-R%C3%A9gions/10736697-plus-de-25 (accessed October 5, 2019). Agence Tunisienne de Coopération Technique (2019). Cooperation until March 2019 (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: https://www.atct.tn/sites/ default/files/communique_au_31-03-2019_fr02.pdf (accessed July 15, 2019). Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie, Tempus Project AQI-UMED for the enhancement of internal quality assurance in the Mediterranean universities: Algeria–Morocco–Tunisia (2010–2013) (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: https://www. auf.org/maghreb/nouvelles/actualites/projet-tempus-pour-le-renforcement/ Ayadi W. (2018). A project to promote the teaching of English in Tunisia (translated title of the original text in French), Gnet News, 30 October. Available online: https://news.gnet.tn/ archives/temps-fort/un-projet-pour-promouvoir-lenseignement-de-langlais-en-tunisie/ id-menu-325.html (accessed November 1, 2019). Bendana, K. (2012). History and culture in contemporary Tunisia, the origins of Tunisian higher education (translated title of the original text in French), June 28. Available online: https://hctc.hypotheses.org/232 (accessed November 1, 2019). Boukthir, M., Baklouti, Ouederni, A., and Mlaoueh, A. (2017). Overview of the Higher Education System, Tunisia, European Union Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Available online: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/eacea-site/files/ countryfiches_tunisia_2017.pdf (accessed September 10, 2019). Bureau des Etudes de la Planification et de Programmation (2019). Higher Education Statistical Data by Governorate (2012–2017) (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: www.mes.tn (accessed September 5, 2019). Centre de Calcul El-Khawarizmi (2017). Strategic Plan 2017–2020 (translated title of the original text in French), January 2017, available online: http://www.cck.rnu.tn/newcck/ cck_documents/PS_CCK_2017-2020.pdf Chabchoub A. (1999). Education and Globalisation (translated title of the original text in French), Revue internationale d’éducation de Sévres, 24: 88–94. Claessens, E. (2018). Expectations of Sub-Saharan students in Tunisia, doors that open, opportunities to seize, study for Terre d’Asile Tunisia (TAT) and the National Observatory of Migration (NOM) (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: https://maison-migrations.tn (accessed October 5, 2019). Conseil de l’Union européenne (2018). Report on the state of EU–Tunisia relations in the framework of the revised European Neighborhood Policy March 2017—March 2018 (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: EEAS https://eeas.europa.eu (accessed October 10, 2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

421

Constitution of the Republic of Tunisia (2015). Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia. (special issue), April 20, 2015, Available online: http://www.legislation.tn/fr/constitution/ la-constitution-de-la-r%C3%A9publique-tunisienne (accessed November 24, 2019). Dani, S., and Mahieu, B. (2018). Specific Support to Tunisia—Background report, European Commission. Available online: https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/specific-support-tunisiabackground-report (accessed October 10, 2019). Decree no. 2013-47 of January 4, 2013, The General Framework of PhD studies in the three-cycle system (translated title of the original document in French). Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia, 79(1), October 2013. Available at: http://www.cnudst.rnrt.tn/ jortsrc/2013/2013f/jo0792013.pdf (accessed November 24, 2019). Délégation de l’Union européenne en Tunisie (2017). EU Delegation activity report—year 2017 (translated title of the original text in French), https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/ rapport_activite_due_2017_fr_20062017.pdf (accessed June 15, 2019). Dhaher, N. (2009). The Tunisian university between localism and internationalization (translated title of the original document in French), Revue de l’enseignement supérieur en Afrique, 7(3): 87–103. Direction Générale de la Coopération Internationale (2005). Spanish Scholarships opportunities (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: http://www.mesrst.tn/ francais/cooperation/espagne_ann.pdf (accessed October 13, 2019). Direction Générale de la Coopération Internationale (2019). The Internationalization of Higher Education and Scientific Research (translated title of the original text in French), [PowerPoint presentation], presentation received on September 30, 2019. Ecole Supérieure de l’Aéronautique et des Technologies (n.d.). Preparatory cycle (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: http://www.esat.ens.tn/cycle-preparatoire/ (accessed July 10, 2019). EOLES (n.d.). Partners. Available online: http://www.eoles.eu/ (accessed July 10, 2019). EU Commission (2019). Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2020, November 5. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents/erasmus-programmeguide-2020_en (accessed November 6, 2019). European Higher Education area (n.d.). The Three-cycle system. Available online: http://ehea. info/page-three-cycle-system?menu=2 (accessed September 15, 2019). Governmental decree 2019-162 of February 18, 2019 regarding the Bachelor study program of Tunis Business School (translated title of the original document in French), Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia, 16, February 22, 2019. Available at: http://www.legislation.tn/fr/ detailtexte/D%C3%A9cret%20Gouvernemental-num-2019-162-du-18-02-2019-jort-2019016__20190160016232?shorten=pfYL (accessed November 24, 2019). Higher Education Decree no. 2012-1719 of September 14, 2012 regarding National Qualification Framework (translated title of the original document in French). Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia, 74, September 14, 2012, Available online: http://www. cnudst.rnrt.tn/jortsrc/2012/2012f/jo0732012.pdf (accessed November 24, 2019). Higher Education decree no 79-293 of April 6, 1979, the organization of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: http://www.legislation.tn/sites/default/files/journal-officiel/1979/1979F/ Jo02579.pdf (accessed November 24, 2019). Higher Education Decree no. 93-1825 regarding the status of higher education professors (translated title of the original document in French). Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia, 68, September 10, 1993. Available online: http://www.legislation.tn/sites/default/ files/journal-officiel/1993/1993F/Jo06893.pdf (accessed November 24, 2019).

422

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Higher Education Decree no. 2012-2392 of October 9, 2012. Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia, 83, October 9, 2012. Available online: http://www.legislation.tn/sites/default/files/ fraction-journal-officiel/2012/2012F/083/TF201212864.pdf (accessed November 24, 2019). Higher Education Law of February 25, 2008. Available online: http://www.legislation.tn/sites/ default/files/journal-officiel/2008/2008F/Jo0192008.pdf (accessed November 24, 2008). Jones, E., and Reiffenrath, T. (2018). Internationalization at home in practice: Curriculum and teaching. European Association for International Education, 2 August. Available online: https://www.eaie.org/blog/internationalization-at-home-practice.html. (accessed November 1, 2019). Kapitalis (2017). Higher Education: Tunisia’s support to Mali, Djibouti and Burina Faso (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: http://kapitalis.com/ tunisie/2017/08/24/enseignement-superieur-appui-tunisien-au-mali-djibouti-et-burkina/ (accessed August 15, 2019). Law no. 2000-67 of July 17, 2000, amending law 89-70 of July 28, 1989 regarding higher education and scientific research (translated title of the original text in French), Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia, 57, July 18, 2000. Available online: http://www.supcom. mincom.tn/Fr/upload/1372260580.pdf (accessed November 25, 2019). Le Dialogue 5+5 (2017). Research innovation and higher education (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: http://www.fiveplusfiverIHE.org/fr/enseignementsup%C3%A9rieur#collapse19393 (accessed October 10, 2019). Luijten-Lub, A. (2007). Choices in Internationalization: How Higher Education Institutions Respond to Internationalization, Europeanization and Globalization. Czech Republic: M.I.B. Malaoui, A., Kherallah, M., Ghomri, L., Andrieu, G., Fredon, T., and Barataud, D. (2016). New strategy for remote practical works in power electronics for embedded systems: Application in EOLES European Project. In Abraham, A., Haqiq, A., Hassanien, A., Snasel, V., and Alimi, A. (eds), Proceedings of the Third International Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement—AECIA . Switzerland: Springer, pp. 149–158. Mazzella, S. (2006). Private Higher Education in Tunisia (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: https://hal-amu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01217269/document (accessed November 15, 2019). Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique (2015). Strategic Plan of Higher Education and Scientific Research Reform 2015–2025 (translated title of the original text in French), January 5, 2015. Available online: http://www.utm.rnu.tn/utm/documents/ plan_strategique.pdf (accessed November 24, 2019). Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique (2017). Scientific Research: Priorities, Future Directions and Key Initiatives 2017–2022 (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: http://cnudst.rnrt.tn (accessed September 20, 2019). Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique (2019). Tunisia–China: 2nd edition of the Chinese Universities Fair, student mobility on the rise, value of the Confucius Centre and installation of the Super Calculator at CCK , (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: http://www.mes.tn/detail_evennement.php?code_ menu=548andcode_evennement=2573 (accessed September 25, 2019). National Day of Technology Transfer (2018) (translated title of the original text in French), December 11–12, 2018, Tunis, Tunisia. Available online: https://jntt2018.b2match.io/ (accessed November 24, 2019). Sagesse (n.d.). Partners. Available online: http://www.sagesseproject.eu/en/page/partners (accessed November 1, 2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TUNISIA

423

Sehoole, C., and Knight, J. (eds) (2013). Internationalization of African Higher Education. Boston, MA : Sense Publishers. Tsiatsos, T., Douka, S., Mavridis, A., Tegos, S., Naddami, A., Zimmer, T., and Geoffroy, D. (2014). Evaluation plan and preliminary evaluation of a network of remote labs in the Maghrebian countries. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 10(5): 15–20. Tunis Business School (2019). School Handbook, version 2018–2019. Available online: http:// www.utunis.rnu.tn/tbs/ (accessed October 10, 2019). U.S. Embassy in Tunisia (n.d.). Programs for Students. Available online: https://tn.usembassy. gov/education-culture/programs-for-students/ (accessed August 1, 2020). Virtual University of Tunis (2016). Strategic Plan 2016–2020 (translated title of the original text in French). Available online: www.uvt.tn (accessed August 20, 2019).

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Internationalization of Higher Education in Palestine KAMEL MANSI

INTRODUCTION Palestine is an Arab country located between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. The first part of historical Palestine was occupied in 1948, which is what is now called Israel, while the second part is the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which was occupied by Israel in 1967 and is now called the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) by the United Nations. The focus of this chapter is on the West Bank and Gaza Strip where the Ministry of Education and Higher Education and higher education institutions are located. It is worth mentioning that the Palestinian people are dispersed globally but about one third of them reside in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (4.91 million) and what is called Israel (1.57 million) in 2016 (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 2018). The internationalization of higher education has emerged as a key issue of the Palestinian National Authority for its growth in the area of education. The Palestinian Higher Education Group did not find internationalization to be solely a method of embracing international methods of growth. Internationalization has often been used as a guiding factor for cultural, political, and social acceptance for both international culture and the modern world. Nevertheless, since the very initial stages of their creation, the efforts of the Palestinian higher education institutions towards internationalization have been harnessed by some factors such as sources of funding, movement, and border restriction, which consequently have influenced the education system. This chapter aims to address the internationalization of higher education institutions in the Palestinian territories. After this introduction, sections include the system of higher education in the Palestinian territories; an outline of the Palestinian universities; the approaches of internationalization of higher education in Palestine; the methodology used in the study for this chapter; the internationalization initiative and procedures including joint programs; internationalization of research with particular focus on the project funded by the European Commission; the “European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM),” which was used in evaluation of the internationalization procedures; the results of the evaluation of the internationalization procedures as well as the obstacles and barriers, finishing with the main conclusions of the study.

424

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE

425

HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM IN PALESTINE Fundamental Principles and National Policies Higher education (HE) is regulated by the Higher Education Act No 11 of 1998. This law gives every person the opportunity to access higher education and gives legal standing to HE organizations and offers a legal structure for their administration and management. The legislation acknowledges various specific types of higher education institutions. These are governmental public organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private institutions. Most of higher education institutions (HEIs) in the State of Palestine (SoP) are public institutions. The Higher Education Council is accountable for drawing up and implementing the laws that all higher education institutions will follow. The Ministry also supports the non-governmental HEIs with partial assistance and financing. The HEIs are mostly autonomous, but they must conform to the above-mentioned regulations, the requirements of the Ministry, and the Higher Education Council (Ministry of Education and Higher Education, 2000).

Financial Support of Higher Education To a large extent, the universities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are financially independent since they depend on students’ tuition fees and external funding. The universities have built good relationships and twinning with other educational institutions in the Arab world and Europe.

Financial Support for Learners’ Families There is no explicit financial assistance for the families of students. This is partly because of the difficult financial situation. The government provides families with a small income tax deduction if the parents have evidence that they are part of the student’s family.

Financial Support for Learners Each HEI aims to raise funds for its graduates. There are a variety of sponsors who offer support to help fund students’ tuition. Such contributors are typically people from Gulf countries or from different international organizations. As far as student funding is concerned, the government has set up the Student Loan Fund (SLF)3F 4, a form of loan given to students on agreement that they repay the loan following graduation. The Student Loan Program is the only formal sponsor of learners. It has a program of nineteen outlets with a total budget of $197,755,303 since its establishment in 2001 (Palestinian Authority, 1995, Higher Education Act No. 11 of 1998 (Articles 1 to 30)).

Financial Autonomy and Control Higher education institutions are categorized as governmental public and private entities where public universities have been founded by a declaration of the Council of Ministers and are responsible administratively, financially, and legally before the Ministry of Education and Higher Education. The public universities must have a Board of Trustees, governed by the University Council, monitored by AQAC/MOEHE and shall obtain financial support pursuant to Article 15 of the Higher Education Act, which shall be distributed to them in compliance with the regulatory standards adopted by the Ministry.

426

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Such organizations shall submit their final balance sheet statements to the Ministry of Finance. The MOEHE has no financial autonomy. Its objectives and actions are therefore dictated by the available funds. Regrettably, the government’s policies and plans are powered by donors while Palestine struggles from loss of serious skill. The impact and control of MOEHE on HEIs is therefore minimal. In view of the difficult financial situation, the MOEHE has an allocated expenditure from the government that the MOEHE dispenses to finance the HEIs. MOEHE finances universities in a manner that makes up for the shortfall in the university budget after collecting the tuition. For instance, if a university receives about 80 percent of its expenses from student fees, the government is expected to pay the missing 20 percent and cover up the difference. In fact, a number of HEI students in Palestine do not pay their fees, and the government does not supply universities with adequate financial support. This has contributed to a situation in which all universities in Palestine are struggling from financial shortages. Teaching constitutes around 80 percent of university profits and is even higher in some colleges. MOEHE retains managerial, financial, and legal liability for public universities under the Higher Education Act No. 11 of 1998. Pursuant to Section 10 of that Act, the government is dedicated to funding government universities in the annual capital budget.

Fees within Private Higher Education The Department also offers limited assistance and financing for private HEIs. The HEIs are often autonomous, private universities, who obtain grants and funding from diverse outlets by fundraising. At the same time, they would conform to the rules of the Ministry and the CHE. Since the tuition for students in private universities is just about the same as those for public universities, the board of directors struggle to maintain their universities as they face the same financial problems as public universities because their graduates fail to pay for their studies. It is necessary to note that private HEIs in Palestine adhere to the same laws as those laid down by the MOEHE and do not possess any other rights. There is therefore no additional financial support for students of private universities and their relatives. Nonetheless, the families of students receive a modest reduction in income tax just like the families of students in public universities.

Key Characteristics of Palestinian HE Students may enter HEIs after obtaining their GSCE (Tawjihi) General Secondary Certificate Exam. Higher education is split along two lines: 1. Learning at Community and Technical Colleges means that the students study for a duration of two years. They can obtain a graduation diploma certificate after they have completed a rigorous test. 2. During university education, graduates undertake research for four to six years to obtain a bachelor’s degree in science education or humanities, engineering or medicine. Universities frequently provide postgraduate programs in which they grant a one-year diploma certificate, a two-year master’s degrees, and three-year doctoral programs in some fields.

Organization of Private Education The formation and service of higher education institutions, governmental public or private, is supervised by the MOEHE. Once the educational investigator determines that

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE

427

the requirements for the creation of a state of a private institution are met the MOEHE gives a verification statement whereby the institution is legally registered.

National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Palestine has been progressing towards implementing the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) for the past twelve years. The key addition to the NQF was the Tempus project called RecoNow, which helped to get the procedure under way, to set up several committees, and to launch discussions. As a consequence of a national workshop organized by the Palestinian Higher Education Reform Expert Team (HERE3), a draft Regional Qualification System has been developed and is available to be implemented by the national authorities.

BACKGROUND OF THE PALESTINIAN UNIVERSITIES Palestinian Council of Higher Education The Palestinian educators have worked hard to establish what is called the “Palestine Council of Higher Education,” which is located in the City of Ramallah in the West Bank. The council has contributed to the establishment of some universities and supported the fundraising initiatives of the Palestinian higher education institutions through the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Palestinian institutions inside and outside Palestine, Palestinian individuals, Arab countries, and the international community (Sullivan, 1991). The role of the council was terminated when the Ministry of Education and Higher Education was established. Although the Palestinian population is one of the most educated people in the Middle East (Grinstein, 2019), the education system is still in disrepair due to the effect of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian land. The higher education system in Palestine reveals a promising picture where the Palestinian households still prioritize investing in their family members (sons and daughters) through joining colleges and universities. All universities in the Palestinian territories were established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. None of the universities have received any financial support from the successive Israeli governments in the last fifty years. In contrast, Palestinian universities are to pay taxes and value added on imported equipment and materials while Israeli universities have been exempted and/or receive compensatory subsidies (Hallaj, 1980). Palestinian scholars and educators have developed the higher education sector through their own efforts despite the obstacles imposed by Israeli governments. Nonetheless, this achievement would not have been accomplished without the support from the PLO and Palestinian patrons and Islamic organizations and communities worldwide (Sullivan, 1991). There are fifty-three accredited universities in the Palestinian territories (thirty-four in the West Bank and eighteen in Gaza Strip) while there is an Open University that serves all Palestinians globally. There are fourteen universities (nine in the West Bank and five in the Gaza Strip). More than 300 fields are being taught in colleges and universities (United Nations Development Programme, 2018).

Community Colleges and Universities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip In 1995, the number of students in Palestinian universities accounted for 29,820 students, of which 16,642 were males and 13,338 females. The number of students jumped to

428

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 26.1: Students in Palestinian universities, 1995–2016. Source: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (2018).

75,579 in 2000 (40,220 males and 35,359 females). The figure increased in 2016 to reach 204,745 students (79,808 males and 124,736 females). It is worth noting that the number of female students increased more than their male counterparts (see Figure 26.1).

APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE Since the signature of the Oslo agreement in 1993, the Palestinian Authority has begun a new era of building a relationship with the international community. With respect to internationalization of higher education institutions, the process has been handed to the Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MoEHE) and universities.

Approach 1: The National Approach The Palestinian MoEHE plays a crucial role in developing formal relationships with the international community through developing diplomatic policies and strengthening the relationships with the educational institutions (i.e., ministries of education in the world). Furthermore, the role of the ministry is to coordinate scientific and cultural activities and diplomacy through a global network with the Arab world, Asia, and European countries. The ministry tries to help Palestinian universities through building instruments of coordination and collaboration with higher education entities and research institutes (Ministry of Education and Higher Education, 2010).

Approach 2: Universities’ Approach Naturally, universities aspire to become recognized international entities because they can then ensure a high quality of their activities. Despite the Israeli occupation and barriers towards education in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Palestinian education institutions have overcome these barriers and continued their progress. As a result, they graduate

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE

429

FIGURE 26.2: Students graduated from the Palestinian universities, 1995–2010. Source: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (2017).

thousands of students at graduate and postgraduate levels (Yahya, 2017). For example, the number of students who graduated from universities in the West Bank was 3,032 (1,584 males and 1,448 females) in 1995, and increased to 30,236 in 2010 (12,075 males and 18,161 females) (see Figure 26.2).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: LIBRARY-BASED RESEARCH Due to the inability of the author to collect primary data on the Palestinian higher education institutions and the Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MoEHE), the study is based on “library-based research.” The present section deals with the study design and methods used to address the objectives of the internationalization procedures. The secret to the effectiveness of a collection-based approach is the comprehensiveness of the collection together with the effective analysis tools utilized by the thesis on the internet as a supplementary search tool. As shown by Rajawet and Kishnan (2004), the usage of a library-based method is intended to maximize the use of research performed by several studies and institutions and to further reduce the expense of collection of data. The library-based method makes intensive use of research reading abstracts, the results of various research, and the outcomes of each analysis. Library-related sociologists are especially involved in researching the dissemination of concepts and behaviors around the environment. In addition, this is essential in several areas including sociology, history, management studies, economics, and interpersonal activity. The traditional approach of a lot of studies has been to perform limited longitudinal studies. Nevertheless, the latest approach relies on the quest of automated repositories. The research utilizes a web-based database of the Internet Archive compiled by the Palestinian universities, the MoEHD, and previous studies. Libraries also serve a rather significant part in academic procedures such as schooling, teaching, and study (Adikata, 2006). Nonetheless, not very many learners are brave enough to utilize a database-based analysis approach that relies on library and internet services. They cannot employ the library-based

430

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

approach in their studies, which can be due to a scarcity of experience in pertinent research analysis and/or qualitative studies. In accordance with research performed by Baker (1997) at the Community College in the United States, it was noticed that most of the respondents examined in the research typically utilized libraries just for coursework, including the accomplishment of exercises or the growth of one’s intellect or knowledge. The article writer argued that colleges in the academic environment may not allow students to utilize library-based approaches to compose their essays and research. Baker (1997) has claimed that the successful usage of the library depends on the institution’s knowledge, appreciation, and comprehension of its position in the educational accomplishment of students. A library-based research is likely to be differentiated from an objective scientific analysis by treating it as a form of research whereby the research of another is under intense examination instead of evidence from recent primary data explicitly obtained from respondents or utilizing specific metrics. Knowledge from a library-based research is the responsibility of others (Centre for Deaf Studies, 2007).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: EUROPEAN FOUNDATION FOR QUALITY MANAGEMENT (EFQM) This section uses the EFQM to assess the state of internationalization in Palestine. The EFQM was created in 1988. Steed (2002: 307) defined EFQM as: “a practical tool to help organizations establish an appropriate management system by measuring where they are on the path towards Excellence, helping them to understand the gaps and then stimulate solutions” (Steed, 2002: 307). The EFQM template serves a significant presence in the cycle of change that is perceived to be at the core of every corporate growth. Nevertheless, the cycle of change is related to the skilled individuals in the company who deliver the highest results (EFQM, 2006). The EFQM has been recognized by the European public in recent years. The EFQM Approach is based on a system of nine requirements. Five requirements are referred to as enablers (leadership, individuals, policy and plan, relationship and capital, and process), whereas the other four requirements concentrate on performance, such as success for customers, consumer experiences, the effects of culture, and the outcomes of success.

Application of EFQM to Internationalization of Higher Education Palestinian universities have formed initiatives and procedures to enhance the internationalization of higher education institutions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The main aim of internationalization procedures is to help higher education institutions to build relationships with worldwide universities, institutions, research institutions, governmental and non-governmental organizations. The Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education and higher education institutions have worked on the diversification of the funding schemes and sources and on students’ mobility. As will be shown later in the chapter, there is no specific policy, plan, or a strategy for internationalization of higher education in Palestine; rather, the universities work through procedures represented in students’ mobility, communication, international cooperation, research and innovation, building strong relationships with Arab, European, Asian, and African governments, nongovernmental organization, international research centers, universities, and so on. The internationalization procedures have been exposed to or applied using certain

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE

431

methodologies such as EFQM and/or Sigma or any other methodology. The questions that can be posed here are: What steps have been initiated by the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education and higher education institutions to implement the internationalization procedures? What are the procedures to evaluate the implementation process of the internationalization initiatives? What are the main findings of the evaluation? Have the internationalization initiative and procedures achieved their aims and objectives? All these questions will be answered and achieved through using the EFQM through its framework, which is presented below. The assessment of the internationalization will be based on reviewing documents related to internationalization and the Palestinian universities’ websites. Tari (2006) introduced the EFQM concept to colleges in Spain, utilizing in-depth research, case analysis, and focus group meetings to adapt the model. The analyst observed that universities are developing their systems by strategic preparation and recognizing the attributes that can be converted through development behavior. The analysis identified from the exhaustive interviews that the key significant obstacles hindering the cycle of changing activities are lack of resources, lack of loyalty to workers, and difficulty in turning the policy goals into risk assessments. Requirements by the EFQM showed that the administration of the university did not play a significant role in the introduction of applicable policies to enhance the efficiency of the institution. The shortage of resources to enforce the program proved to be a significant hurdle.

INTERNATIONALIZATION INITIATIVE AND PROCEDURES In general, internationalization is tremendously crucial for higher education. Thus, making it especially critical in the Palestinian situation, which is described by severe isolation, extremely restricted mobility, and border closures. The problem of isolation is particularly serious for undergraduate students as the majority of graduate studies are conducted overseas. To try to enhance the international aspect of Palestinian higher education, Palestinian universities have undertaken many internationalization measures that worked together during the past couple of years. First, a compilation of generic programs is listed in which some are recognized, and some have been functioning for decades. Some of these schemes are available to students from other Palestinian schools and similar schemes may have been implemented by other Palestinian universities. Palestinian universities were productive engines of human liberation (Bruhn, 2006) and regional growth even in the most dangerous civil, economic, and political conditions (Abu Lughd, 2000), particularly until the end of Israeli hegemony over Occupied Territories in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip throughout the 1990s. Since the conclusion of the Israeli regulation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the creation of the Palestinian National Authority in 1994, higher education has been reformed and preliminary attempts at internationalization have started within the aegis of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education.

Joint Programs Many initiatives have also been developed as collaborative ventures involving regional universities as well as several foreign universities in the context of EU programs. Sources include a master’s degree in Sustainable Engineering at Birzeit and Najah universities in

432

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Palestine and Swedish, German, and Slovenian universities. A further example is the Master’s Program in Electrical Engineering shared by Berzeit, Hebron Polytechnic, and Kadoorie universities in Palestine and institutes in the United Kingdom, France, Romania, and Bulgaria. At the undergraduate level, the Department of Informatics provides small “serious games” in cooperation with universities in Palestine, Tunisia, Germany, and Sweden (Berzeit University, 2018).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF RESEARCH Research Projects Research activities are regarded as the cornerstone of higher education institutions, particularly universities. Research is an important function that plays a critical role in advancing the rank of a university in comparison with other universities (Lukman, Krajnc, and Glavic, 2010). Research activities are the main element of academic staff promotion with the academic institutions, which consequently increases the rank of universities. In order to encourage research in the Palestinian universities and research centers, the Ministry of Education and Higher Education has established what is called “the scientific research council.” The main aim of this council is to support the conducting of socioeconomic, political, and environmental research in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Focusing on research, in general, may attract external funding from international agencies and bring financial support from governments (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 2018).

International Projects Funded by the European Commission Tempus Program The Tempus program is initiated by the European commission. The main aim of this program is to support the modernization of higher education institutions in the partner countries in different areas of the world. Palestine is regarded one of the countries which benefited from the projects that were initiated about twelve years ago. The project also aimed at supporting the higher education system in Eastern Europe countries, Central Asia, and the Mediterranean region through joint projects and promoting a people-to-people approach. The Tempus program launched its activities in 2008 with twenty-two projects funded by the European Commission. The project mainly covers a range of areas such as master’s and PhD programs, developing business research, technology curriculum, etc. (Milosz, Milosz, and Grzegórski, 2016).

Project: Palestinian Universities Share Experiences and Feedback on their Process of Modernization Project: Improving Governance Practices at Palestinian HE Institutions This project was funded by the Mediterranean Universities Union. The project budget accounted for 856,840 Euro while the project duration was between October 2016 and October 2019. The main aim of the project was to strengthen the governance system of HE institutions in Palestine. The project also aimed to establish a common governance framework and adopt innovative practices that contribute to improve the governance of the Palestinian universities. This will consequently lead to the quality of education and employability of university graduates in the West Bank and Gaza. The project came up with a governance guidelines handbook and three months’ online training (European Union, 2020).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE

433

TABLE 26.1 Projects funded by the European Commission in the West Bank and Gaza Strip No.

Project title

1

Develop Business and Economic Research Centers Capacity at Palestinian Higher Education Institutions Master’s in Health Informatics Development of Health Informatics Integrated Curricula in Computing and Health-oriented Undergraduate Degrees The Mediterranean Public HEALTH Alliance Modernization of Teaching Methodologies in Higher Education: EU Experience for Jordan and Palestinian Territory A Bottom-Up Approach for Opening Up Education in South-Mediterranean Countries Raising the Quality of Teacher Education Programs in Palestine Boosting Innovation in Curricula Development of IT Programs in Palestine Pathway in Forensic Computing Research Output Management through Open Access Institutional Repositories in Palestinian Higher Education Transforming Assessment Practices in Large Enrollment First Year Education Improving Governance Practices and Palestinian Higher Education Institution Virtual Reality as an Innovative and Immersive Learning Tool for HEIs in Palestine e-Academy to Support Smart Cities Operations in Palestine Fostering Entrepreneurship in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Pathway in Enterprise Systems Engineering Increasing the Conformance of Academia towards Rehabilitation Engineering Teaching English as Foreign Language in Palestinian HEIs: An e- Learning Initiative that Bridges Educational and Socio-Political Gaps Innovations in Water Education Programs: Enhancing Water Security and Socio-economic Development in the Eastern Mediterranean under Climate Change Development of TVET Pedagogical Competences and Qualification in Palestinian Universities Strengthening of National Research Capacity on Policy, Conflict Resolution, and Reconciliation International Master of Science on Cyber Physical Systems

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

Year 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018

2018 2018 2018

Project: Funding Scholarship for Palestinian Students Funded by the University of Exeter– Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies The project aims to help postgraduate students from the Palestinian diaspora to reach all those who are interested in the history of Palestine, wherever they are. The project also aims to offer the opportunity to the dedicated students from different Palestinian communities. This will be a contribution of the University of Exeter to the education of the Palestinian generations (The European Centre for Palestine Studies, 2020).

434

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Project: Joint Master’s and PhD Programs The Ministry of Education and Research and the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education organized a workshop in November 2011 to identify and discuss research priorities of mutual interest. The workshop came up with a recommendation to create an institutional partnership between Julich Research Centre and Al-Quds University in Jerusalem. In relation to research, the Germany Federal Ministry of Education and Research has built a cooperation with the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education. The main aim of this project has been to support policy-related research and help in making use of scientific and technological patents. The project has opened opportunities for exchange and networking between people across state borders. The cooperation program was launched in 2011 when an agreement was signed by the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2020). The agreement also aimed to promote and expand bilateral cooperation in science and research as well as to define effective instruments to strengthen the joint activities of the Palestinians and German researchers. The funding schemes have been beneficial for the Palestinian universities, research institutions (non-university centers), and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The research fund accounted for 150,000 Euro (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2020).

Mediterranean Universities Union Project An-Najah National University has coordinated its experience and that of other Palestinian universities that aimed to share their experience and feedback on the modernization process of practices on the university governance. The two-day workshop was hosted by Ljubljana University on February 13–14, 2019 in partnership with the Italians, Irish, and Portuguese. The focus of this workshop was placed on the online training pertaining the governance of universities and quality assurance that the Palestinian universities started in December 2018. The aim of that training was also to improve administrators’ officers, deans of faculties, planning officers, and quality assurance officers.

EVALUATION OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROCEDURES USING EFQM This section aims to evaluate the internationalization procedures initiated by the Palestinian universities and the MoEHE. EFQM was used to evaluate the internationalization processes and procedures developed by the MoEHE and universities. There is nothing called a clear plan or a strategy for internationalization of higher education in Palestine. It would rather be called procedures since the Palestinian Ministry of Higher Education and higher education institutions have not developed a plan for internationalization. The results of different sections of this chapter were based on a literature review of internationalization of higher education in Palestine using websites of all universities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Table 26.2 presents the six domains (leadership, policy and strategy, people partnership and resources, processes, and people) results of the EFQM that were used to analyze the internationalization procedures of higher education in Palestine.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE

435

TABLE 26.2 Leadership Questions

Actions

1. The Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestinian universities allocated sufficient technical and human resources to create international cooperation with higher educational institutions on the international level.

Previous studies showed that the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education and HE institutions have competent experience in the internationalization processes of HE. However, internationalization plans require detailed planning that can be translated to actions and consequently need competent leaders and staff to work on all relevant tasks and activities.

2. Leaders on the policy-making level (position) systematically review the plans and action plans and examine the effectiveness of these plans.

The PA represented in universities are directly responsible for policymaking and planning of the internationalization process. However, there is no national plan for internationalization of higher education institutions. The literature shows that leaders in universities have put some plans in place for attracting international funding and international students’ mobility.

3. Are the PA leaders and policymakers involved in the implementation of the internationalization plan that may ensure that the policy is effectively implemented by all higher education institutions, particularly universities?

The policymakers in the PA follow up the implementation of the internationalization plan but they are not largely involved in the implementation process due to engagement in other projects. However, the leaders in the universities are engaged in the implementation activities and follow up with them attentively.

4. Have head of departments in the Ministry of Higher Education and universities reviewed previous plans and cooperation with different international bodies to improve future plans?

Reviewing the role of the Ministry and Education and Higher Education indicates that the leaders at the ministry are not directly involved in reviewing plans developed by the universities. It is the responsibility of the universities to review their plans and improve the results through forming specialized committees to follow up the process.

5. What are the weaknesses of current plans/frameworks that hinder the internationalization process within the Palestinian universities?

The main problem is that there is no clear plan within the Ministry of Education and Higher Education while the universities have developed some strategies for internationalization, but every university has developed its own plan. This is a weakness that may fragment the efforts.

6. What support does the Ministry of Education and Higher Education provide to universities to work on students’ mobility and research?

The Ministry of Education and Higher Education support the universities through building formal relationships with governments on regional and international levels.

7. Do the leaders of Palestinian universities communicate the aims and objectives on internationalization of higher education to public people through the media?

There are no specific plans for communicating the objectives of internationalization to public people. However, the read and visual press usually cover the meetings of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education and universities with international missions and visitors.

436

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 26.3 Policy and strategy Questions

Actions

1. Have the internationalization procedures taken into consideration the requirements of the universities and research centers from competent people who have the knowledge and skills that help in implementing the internationalization process?

Every Palestinian university has established a department or a unit for internationalization and public relations. These departments have hired skilled people in public relations and communication with international community organization and partners.

2. Have the Ministry of Education and Higher Education and universities conducted a needs assessment of studies/ surveys to identify the future needs of universities from skills in communication, negotiation, international and public relations?

The literature shows that none of the universities and the Ministry of Higher Education conducted any needs assessment study or survey regarding the internationalization of higher education institutions and knowledgeable people in fundraising, communication and international relations.

3. Did the universities develop performance indicators for monitoring and evaluating the Internationalization departments such as number of research projects funded every year and the number of master’s and PhD fellowships?

The literature shows that there are no performance indicators through which the universities can monitor and evaluate the performance of projects and programs funded by national and international agencies.

4. Have the internationalization procedures taken into consideration the demographic changes in the increasing number of students and the demand on postgraduate studies (master’s and PhD programs)?

Looking through the internationalization procedures shows that the universities and the Ministry of Education and Higher Education try to find international sponsors for master’s and PhD programs for graduate students. The universities have also created communication channels with several European countries and universities for the purpose of securing funding for postgraduate studies.

5. Are the internationalization procedures All universities stress that opening channels with in the universities consistent with their governmental and non-governmental missions and values? organization is essential for developing the universities, exchange of experience, and mobility and long-term cooperation. 6. Did the Ministry of Higher education and universities set up a review plan for current internationalization procedures?

It seems that the educational institutions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have designed review plans for current internationalization procedures. However, universities are still active in looking to strengthen their relationships with the academic international community.

7. What critical success factors and indicators have the Ministry of Higher Education and universities put in place to follow up the success of internationalization procedures?

Examining relevant documents produced by the Ministry of Higher Education and universities shows that they have not developed any sort of success factors related to internationalization procedures.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE

8. What sort of coordination and collaboration have the Ministry of Higher Education and Universities put in place with national and international organization?

437

By reviewing the Ministry of Higher Education and universities, relevant documents indicate that there are some plans and procedures the ministry and universities put in place for national and international coordination and collaboration (i.e., United Nations organization, international nongovernmental organization, and national industrial sector).

TABLE 26.4 People Questions

Actions

1. Has the Ministry of Higher Education and universities designed plans for human resource development in relation to implementation of the internationalization procedures?

As mentioned above, the ministry and universities have hired competent personnel who can do the job professionally. It is worth mentioning here that the Palestinian Authority considers human resources as one of the primary drivers of the Palestinian economy.

2. Have the people working in the internationalization departments and public relations developed the skills that meet the needs of the implementation process of the internationalization procedures?

Reviewing the departments of internationalization departments showed that the personnel working in these departments have the skills that meet the requirements of meeting the implementation process of procedures.

3. Have the Palestinian Authority and higher It is clear from the Palestinian Authority and education institutions developed equal higher education institutions that they have a opportunity law? particular act for discrimination against gender, color, or ethnicity. 4. Have the Ministry of Higher Education and higher education institutions developed particular forms for feedback from the funding agencies/individuals, beneficiaries?

Looking through the websites of the Ministry of Higher Education and higher education institutions we can see that they have developed evaluation forms for beneficiaries but not for funding agencies and individuals.

5. Have the Ministry of Higher Education and higher education institutions developed training plans that meet the needs of both public and private sectors who participate in assisting in fundraising and communication with national and international organizations?

Reviewing the websites of the ministry and universities showed that they have not developed any training plans regarding the implementation of the internationalization initiatives.

6. Have the Ministry of Education and Higher Education and universities developed formal procedures to share the knowledge about the internationalization procedures with other nationals (public and private sectors)?

Reviewing relevant documents shows that the ministry and universities have not developed any formal procedures regarding the internationalization initiatives with other public and private sector organization.

438

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 26.5 Partnership and resources Questions

Actions

1. Have the Ministry of Education and Higher Education and universities developed a structured relationship with private and public sector organization in order to effectively implement the internationalization procedures?

To some extent, the ministry and universities have a good relationship with other private and public sector organizations but not really in relation to the implementation of the internationalization procedure.

TABLE 26.6 Processes Questions

Actions

1. The internationalization procedures of higher education in Palestine began in the early 1980s and, during that period, the universities changed and developed processes for the implementation of internationalization procedures.

The Palestinian universities and the Palestinian Higher Education Council succeeded, to a large extent, in the implementation of internationalization of higher education in terms of student mobility, fundraising and international cooperation.

2. Have the Ministry of Education and Higher Education and universities designed measurement and performance targets and indicators related to the internationalization process?

Reviewing the relevant documents showed that the ministry and universities have not developed performance measurement and lists of indicators for internationalization process.

3. Have the Ministry of Education and Higher Education and universities established a method for implementing change?

The ministry and universities still depend upon reports coming from funding agencies and partners. However, there is no change in the system of reporting and processing the internationalization procedures.

TABLE 26.7 People results Questions

Actions

1. Skills development of personnel working within the internationalization departments and units.

It was clear from reviewing the universities’ departments of international cooperation and public relations units, that they have not developed professional development plans in internationalization and other related areas such as communication, cooperation, and fundraising. However, the universities have hired skilled personnel to work in the internationalization departments. As shown above, the Palestinian higher education institutions have hired skilled people who can work on the internationalization activities.

2. Are the requirements of internationalization procedures competent to achieve their aims?

This is a critical question. To a large extent, personnel working in the internationalization procedures are competent in achieving the aims of the international departments and the aims of the Palestinian universities as a whole.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE

439

BARRIERS TO INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE According to Yemini (2017), the internationalization of higher education in the societies that witness conflict and political problems is critical and the process of evaluation is exposed to exploitation and dubious purposes. Yemini stressed that the Palestinian students face many barriers to enter Israel and to move to other countries due to security issues imposed by Israeli military forces. In general, physical mobility is one of the main constraints of internationalizing higher education in Palestine.

Israeli Restrictions/Barriers to Internationalization of Higher Education in Palestine The basic right to education is preserved in international law. According to article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to education and higher education should be equally available to everyone on the basis of merit (United Nations Human Rights, 2012). Palestinian universities are facing challenges, which means that this worldwide right is being extremely disregarded in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT). As Israel is the more powerful side, it is in full control over access to the occupied Palestinian territories and it places tremendous constraints and restrictions on exit and entry, thus making it extremely difficult for international academics to teach at Palestinian universities, causing one university to take legal action. This is made harder as Israel refuses to give work permits to academics with foreign passports in order to teach at Palestinian institutions. As well as academics being restricted, students with foreign passports also face many restrictions. Foreign students and academics tend to rely on short-term visitor permits, which in many cases are delayed or even cancelled unexpectedly. Having international academics is very crucial to any university in any country as they offer new perspectives originating from a variety of backgrounds and cultures, thus improving intellectual discussions between students and teaching staff. International academics aid students in acquiring the necessary skills for global citizenship as well as developing their understanding on different cultures. However, most universities and students in Palestine do not have the opportunity to engage in such training due to the restrictions on foreign academics from Israel (Palumbo-Liu, 2019). Furthermore, these restrictions placed by the Israeli government also mean that Palestinian students living in the occupied Palestinian territory have very limited opportunities when it comes to studying abroad, attending international conferences, learning from visiting academics and researchers, and benefiting from having a diverse group of lecturers and student body. Undeniably this is a human right as it is stated that “education should promote understanding, tolerance, and friendship between all nations, racial and religious groups”. However, Palestinian universities are being denied these rights and are gradually and forcefully being isolated from the rest of the world. In 2016, a faculty member at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, was not granted entry to occupied Palestine in order to deliver classes at Birzeit University. In response to this, SOAS published a statement condemning the decision, stating that it is an irrational violation of academic freedom. In 2006, eleven Palestinian universities published a letter directed at the members of the global city society, appealing for a united action against the Israeli policies and restrictions that highly impact the Palestinian society, especially education.

440

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Internationalization is attempted by many Palestinian universities; however, they are always faced with many obstacles and it is not easily adopted due to numerous political and financial issues. One challenge they encounter is the language barrier. As there is a limited number of international academics due to the Israeli restrictions, Palestinian students are not exposed to other languages and therefore are anxious about being taught by academics who do not understand their native language. Consequently, some students are uncomfortable in contributing to interactive activities and are heavily discouraged to take part in class. However, it has been observed that this issue is often solved after the first meetings. Additionally, Birzeit, Adalah, and Al-Haq human rights centers provided statistics to demonstrate the degree to which these policies and restrictions impact the university and its staff members: ●

●

●

●

Between 2017 and 2019, four full-time and three part-time foreign academics at Birzeit University were forced to exit the country and leave their roles as Israel refused to renew their visas. Two foreign lecturers at Birzeit University were denied entry in 2019. More than twelve departments and programs are at risk of losing staff members in the coming year because of Israel policies and restrictions. Five full-time foreign staff members are currently overseas with no clear knowledge on when they will be allowed to return and obtain the visas needed in order for them to stay for the coming academic year (Al-Haq, 2019).

Birzeit University is not the only university suffering from the strict Israeli policies; many other Palestinian universities across the West Bank and East Jerusalem are also massively impacted. Another internationalization factor that is massively impacted due to Israeli restrictions and barriers is foreign funding. Due to the redevelopment of the Palestinian economy under occupation, Palestinian academia greatly relies on foreign funding as the Israeli government fails to meet the international legal requirement of offering the necessary educational services to the occupied population. In the last few years, the Palestinian Authority has encountered a funding crisis due to cuts to foreign funding by the Israeli government. As a result, public sector budgets significantly decreased. These budget reductions heavily impacted universities as academics’ salaries decreased, it was difficult for universities to hire new lecturers, and finally they did not have the necessary funding for several activities that the students would have benefited from (Al-Haq, 2019).

CONCLUSION This study aimed to tackle the issue of internationalization of higher education institutions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Based on the evaluation results of the internationalization procedures, the study arrived at the following conclusions: 1. The Palestinian universities have succeeded in creating substantial relationships with the international community despite the Israeli barriers. However, this achievement still needs more work to maximize the benefits through unified efforts of all higher education institutions. 2. Efforts of higher education institutions are fragmented and they have not developed a national aim of internationalization of higher education. Thus, they are required to work on defining a national goal for internationalization. There is

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PALESTINE

441

not a specific plan or a strategy for internationalization of higher education developed either by the MoEHD or the Palestinian universities. Therefore, this study recommends designing a national policy that can serve all higher education institutions. In this case, the MoEHE and all universities can work together on designing such policy, and communicate it to the international community in the Arab world, Europe, Asia, and America. 3. It is concluded that there is cooperation between the Ministry of Education and Higher Education and universities in terms of coordination and collaboration with international organizations but this cooperation should be translated into forming technical teams from the universities and the ministry to work hand by hand on the implementation of internationalization process. 4. The evaluation showed that the universities have developed plans for communicating the internationalization plans to public people who may be able to help in fundraising on the individual level. Thus, the universities should share with the public the planning and implementation of internationalization. 5. The study found that the universities have not developed performance indicators through which they can monitor and evaluate the performance of projects and programs funded by national and international agencies. 6. The Palestinian universities have not been able to raise the issue of students’ mobility due to Israeli obstacles to obtaining visas for international students.

REFERENCES Abu-Lughd, J. (1980). Demographic Characteristics of the Palestinian Population. Technical report prepared for UNESCO. Paris: Mimeo. Adikata, A. (2006). Student library use: A study of faculty perceptions in a Malaysian University. Library Review, 55(2): 106–119. Al-Haq (2019). Israel Forcing International Lecturers out of the West Bank Palestinian Universities. Ramallah, Palestine. Baker, R.K. (1997). Faculty perceptions towards student library use in a large urban community college. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(3): 177–182. Berzeit University (2018). Joint programmes. Berzeit, Palestine. Bruhn, C. (2006) Higher education as empowerment: The case of Palestinian universities. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(8): 1125–1142. Centre for Deaf Studies (2007). Dissertation Handbook. Centre for Deaf Studies. EFQM (2006). EFQM Forum, 2006 Recognition Book—Budapest. European Union (2020). Erasmus+ Programme Guide. Brussels. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2020). Announcement within the framework of the Federal Government’s Strategy for the Internationalization of Science and Research Regulations Governing the Funding of Scientific and Technological Cooperation (STC) with Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education. Ramallah, Palestine, https://www. internationales-buero.de/media/content/Final_ENG_PALGER2019_final.pdf Grinstein, A. (2019). Education and hope in the Arab world: The successful, underdiscussed case of the Palestinians. School of Business, Northeastern University, Netherland. Economics and Business Administration, VU Amsterdam. Lukman, R., Krajnc, D., and Glavic, P. (2010). University ranking using research, educational and environmental indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7): 619–628.

442

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Miłosz, M. Milosz, E., and Grzegórski, S. (2016). Tempus Programme and Its Influence on Development of EU Universities. Conference: International Technology, Education and Development Conference. DOI: 10.21125/iceri.2016.0954 Ministry of Education and Higher Education (2013). Mid-Term Strategy for Higher Education Sector (2010, 2011–2013). Ramallah, Palestine. Ministry of Education and Higher Education (2000). Higher Education Act No. 11 of 1998 (Articles 1 to 30). Palestinian Authority (1995). Higher Education Act No. 11 of 1998 (Articles 1 to 30). Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (2018). Scientific Research Centre. PCBS , Ramallah, Palestine. Palumbo-Liu, D. (2019). Israel’s restrictions on international academics at Palestinian universities must be opposed. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation. com/opinion/israels-restrictions-international-academics-palestinian-universities-must-beopposed Rajawet, A., and Kishnan, M. (2004). Interface synthesis: Issues and approaches. Development of computer science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi. socialsciences. exeter.ac.uk/iais/research/centres/palestine/funding/ Steed, C. (2002). Excellence in Higher Education: Evaluating the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in Higher Education in the UK . Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 1(24): 74–99. Sullivan, A. (1991). Palestinian universities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Minerva, 29(3): 249–268. Tari, J. (2006). An EFQM model self-assessment exercise at a Spanish university. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2): 170–188. The European Centre for Palestine Studies (2020). Funding scholarship for Palestinians. Fund Palestine Studies, Exeter University, Exeter, United Kingdom. United Nations Development Programme (2018). Education in the Palestinian Territories. www. undp.org/palestine. United Nations Human Rights (2012). World Programme for Human Rights Education: Plan of action. New York and Geneva: UN Publications. Yahya, H. (2017). Tools for Internationalizing Higher Education in Developing Countries. Working Paper, Birzeit University. Yemini, M. (2017). Internationalization under intractable conflict: The influence of national conflict on Israeli Higher Education Institutions’ internationalization efforts. European Education, 49(4): 293–303.

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

Conclusion: Enhancing Outcomes through Internationalization An Overview of the Higher Education Sector in the MENA Region JULIE VARDHAN

INTRODUCTION Globalization affects all aspects of the economy—in terms of communication, accessibility of markets, and cross-cultural relations across boundaries of nations and regions. Globalization is also considered to have brought forth tremendous impacts on the internationalization of higher education in terms of economy, effectiveness, and efficiency (Chan, 2008). With education being considered as an investment in human capital with benefits to the individual as well as to the economy, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, with approximately nineteen countries, assumes education to play a central role in the modernization and development of countries in the region. The World Bank defines MENA as including these countries and economies: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Arab Republic of Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), West Bank and Gaza, and Republic of Yemen. MENA has a contrasting group of countries in terms of economy and political status. While the region has a group of countries that are considered as high-income, it also includes countries which have witnessed civil strife and challenges in terms of their economic stability. Economically, the region has two major associations, of which several of the countries are members. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a trade association of the Gulf Arab states and OPEC (Organization of Oil producing economies). The highincome oil exporting countries in the Gulf like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and UAE are included in the region while the middle-income countries, as well as the least developed countries such as Sudan, Yemen, and Mauritania, are also considered under MENA (OECD-FAO Report, 2018). These countries share similar economic backbones of natural resources and cooperation for trade in the countries. Ehteshami (2003) mentions that the political changes in one of the gulf countries has a tendency to create a bandwagon effect with 443

444

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

other countries adopting similar features. The countries of the region share many themes, especially due to the common religion of Islam and the key language being Arabic. The region was under European colonization until the first half of the twentieth century and, even after colonization, a strong economic, cultural, and political dependence on developed countries remained. These similarities would help in understanding the context in which the higher educator sector exists in the region although there are issues that each country faces which need to be tackled at the national level (Akkari, 2004). Drawing upon the literature and the websites of the Ministry of Higher Education from each country, this chapter examines the development of higher education in the MENA region. With internationalization considered to be one of the educational outcomes, the globalized economy, changes in political leadership and ideology, and the growing rate of unemployment seem to be the reasons for reforming the higher education sector in the region. The chapter analyzes the higher education sector in the MENA region with respect to the massification in terms of student enrollment numbers and the growth in the number of institutions. Studies have found that massification and effects of globalization on higher education are inextricably linked, hence a discussion on the same is followed. A major concern of policymakers in the region has been with respect to educational outcomes. The educational outcomes will be measured from three aspects: first, in terms of employability of the graduates; second, by comparing the region’s contribution in the areas of research; and third, by measuring the internationalization of the education sector. The conclusion summarizes the key features of the higher education system, and the regional inequalities, and suggests future areas of study.

MASSIFICATION AND GLOBALIZATION Ng (2012) suggests that the contemporary higher education system is affected by two mega trends—massification and globalization. With policymakers ensuring that education reaches its maximum potential, higher education has shifted from being elite to the massification mode. Globalization is a multidimensional phenomenon and signifies the intensification of social, political, economic, and cultural relations across borders and regions (Held, 2000). The countries in the MENA region are in the midst of this pull. While massification puts tremendous pressure on the governance, finance, and quality of the education, the globalization pushes for standardization in terms of curriculum, mobility of students, and resource mobilization by the institutions. With globalization having an effect on the various sectors including education, higher education is increasingly crossing the national and cultural boundaries to assume a global outlook with institutions across the world striving to become international (Waters and Brooks, 2011; Hébert and Abdi, 2013; Kahn and Misiaszek, 2019). The rapidly evolving higher education sector in the MENA region is largely adopting the American university model as the standard. According to Coffman (2003), this rush towards the American model is largely due to the lack of a strong academic tradition outside the Islamic studies. Even in the most conservative cultures, like that of Saudi Arabia where strict religious strictures are followed, or the Levant and Maghreb region, the Americanization model is well accepted. This seems to have created a dichotomy with two schools co-existing: the traditional school, and the modern educational needs of the new generation which needs to be understood with the way the higher education system has evolved in the MENA region. Among the reasons for the existence of the traditional schools are the region’s historic cultural, political, and tribal interconnections. One of the common interconnections

OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE MENA REGION

445

between the Arabian Gulf states is that these states have been traditionally ruled by families and, over the years, have evolved into independent states (Ehteshami, 2003). Moreover, the common religion and language further bind the region together. One of the features common across several of the countries in the region is that the colonial authorities initiated compulsory modern education. However, the access was limited to education, mainly due to the existence of a formal local education system, represented by Koranic schools which had a high number of takers, not just due to the religious reference but also because of their opposition to Western cultural hegemony (Akkari, 2004). A number of countries recognized the advancement of the Western education system even during the nineteenth century, for example the Egyptian and Tunisian governments sent missions to Europe to try to emulate the European way for the region’s advancement in the technological and military fields. In Tunisia, the polytechnic school of Bardo was created in 1830, as a local version of the French l’école polytechnique, with the intention of giving the country the chance to absorb new technologies. Akkari (2004) further mentions that with education being considered as an investment in human capital, with benefits to the individual as well as to the economy, the post-colonial era in the region witnessed its policymakers focusing on an improvement in the literacy rate, which more than doubled from 1960 to 1995. In fact, improvement in literacy was greater than in any other region in the Third World. However, the overall literacy rate continues to be lower among females, especially in countries like Morocco, Yemen, and Egypt. The Arab Spring, beginning in the early 2010s, spread across much of the Islamic world in response to oppressive regimes and a low standard of living. Although initiated in Tunisia, the revolution soon spread to other countries like Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain and continued more or less until 2013. Social media has been considered to be the driving force behind the swift spread of the revolution across the region and is largely seen as an effect of globalization (Skinner, 2011; Masoud, Reynolds, and Brownlee, 2013). Large-scale conflicts resulted in civil wars in Syria, Libya, and Yemen and insurgency in Iraq and Egypt (The Telegraph, 2011; America Magazine, 2012; Karber, 2012), with a number of analysts pointing to the onset of an Arab Winter in the region (The Jerusalem Post, 2013; Euro News, 2013; Middle East Eye, 2015). The Arab Spring brought to the fore the education, that in a globalized world the youth are getting through the use of technology, when their formal education system falls short (Mohamed, Gerber, and Aboulkacem, 2016). With the focus of the policymakers being on increasing the accessibility of higher education to the largest number of residents, there has been a tremendous growth in the number of universities and higher education institutions being established in the countries, with several countries even opening up their economy to welcome private institutions in the sector. The University of Zitouna in Tunisia was among the most important universities in the world where some of the great scholars of the Arab world had taught. Tunisia is one of the countries in the MENA region which considered education as a priority and made primary and secondary education free in the country from 1958. The Gross enrollment ratio in tertiary education has been increasing over the years in the MENA region as shown in Figure 27.1. Despite the region facing strife across several of the countries, the gross enrollment ratio for both sexes, from primary to tertiary education, has also seen an increase over the years from 2010 to 2016 (data being available up to 2016). While it may seem that the tertiary education level is being accessed by around 40 percent of the eligible population, Assad (2010) argues that the policy of free

446

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 27.1: Gross enrollment ratio—MENA. Source: UIS, n.d.

education in almost all the countries of the MENA region has not been able to meet the objective of providing access to all. The study takes the case of Egypt in arguing that the policy of free public education in the country has in fact created an unequal system whereby the scarce public resources are utilized to fund the education of the rich at the expense of the poor, who are almost excluded from higher education. However, the region has witnessed tremendous growth in the number of institutions since 2000, including the countries with historically restrictive tertiary participation. Libya and Palestine have moved to universal higher education with more than fifty percent participation rate while countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan, are making tremendous efforts to respond to the incessant demands from increasing numbers of secondary education graduates (Rubin and Kazanjian, 2011). Currently, 9 million students in the region are enrolled in universities of which 10 percent are enrolled in postgraduate studies (8 percent master’s, 2 percent doctorate) (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). Coupled with the increase in the enrollment number of students is the increase in the number of higher education institutions. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, established in 1932, for instance, saw a dramatic change in the education sector after oil was discovered in 1938. King Saud University was established in 1957; there were six more universities, which were established over a period of twenty years. Similarly, in UAE, starting with its first university in 1971, the higher education sector saw an exponential growth with the number of institutions reaching up to seventy by the year 2015. Although the universities are typically federal universities in many countries of the region with the central government having control on the policies and governance of these universities, in several of the countries, especially the high income countries of the MENA region, a number of private universities have been established to cater to the demands of the diverse population base in these countries. Tunisia has both public and private universities, with 13 public

OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE MENA REGION

447

universities including 203 public faculties, schools, or higher institutes) and 76 private institutions. The tertiary or higher education system in MENA region follows the unitary method, where one institution offers different courses, from bachelor’s to postgraduate or doctoral level courses in various disciplines. The courses and the programs of both public and private universities are accredited through the Ministry. Main courses offered in these institutions with the largest number of students enrolled are for social sciences like management, basic sciences like technological studies, arts, medical, and environmental studies. The Arab higher education landscape is dominated by large public universities that prepare graduates for public sector jobs. Hence the courses in which the largest number of students are enrolled are in the areas of social science and humanities, which can cater to the jobs available in the public sector. The economy foresees jobs in the knowledge economy for the private sector, for which the graduates of public universities are not being fully equipped. Hence there is a huge demand for private universities and institutions that can cater to meet the skill set as required by the economy. In Algeria, the increase in the number of students from 1961 in the higher education institutions was 1,317, which had multiplied almost a 1,000 times by 2012. But, similar to the situation in other MENA countries, the Algerian institutions suffer from a lack of experience and technical competitiveness because most of the university staff are graduates in the fields of the humanities and social sciences (Eddine, 2015). The continuing rise in the number of students and universities, and the growing effects of globalization, have led to the creation of opportunities for increased internationalization of higher education in the region. In the majority of these countries, the languages used are Arabic and French, although at the higher education level English is used considerably. Another feature of the evolving higher education system in the region is the increasing privatization. Jordan was the first country to adopt to this change and currently nearly one third of Jordanians pursue their higher education in private universities. In UAE 30 percent of K-12 schools and the majority of higher education institutions are privately owned (Godwin, 2006). The main incentive for students to enroll in private institutions is that they are based on the international model of the education system, mainly the American model (Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). While the importance of public universities continues to be central in a number of countries, the influence of the international model continues to be dominant. The process of privatization in the countries in the region is manifested in several ways—setting up of international branch campuses, introduction of foreign languages in public as well as private universities, and increasing international collaboration in the areas of research and academics.

EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES With increasing massification and privatization, which are considered to be the manifestation of internationalization, the impact of education in the region’s development is an interesting area to be explored. However, for sectors like education, the absence of direct price competition or measures of profitability (Bratti, Knight, Naylor, and Smith, 2003), means the outcomes are typically related to intangible measures. Among the outcomes related to the internationalization of higher education are the developments of human capital suitable for a global economy, the contribution in research, and finally a direct effect of internationalization in terms of establishment of international institutions.

448

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

EMPLOYMENT GENERATION The evolution of the knowledge-based economy coupled with globalization has brought about a number of changes in the higher education sector. One of the major trends of globalization is to restructure the education system in such a way as to make the students be globally competitive (Ng, 2012). Although higher education is a non-compulsory educational level following the completion of secondary level, it is an indicator of an individual’s ability to compete in the job market. Higher education also helps in increasing the job opportunities and providing employment in a knowledge-based economy (Freeman and Thomas, 2005 in Wan, 2011). The MENA region has started to emphasize the development of human capital, to make the region less dependent on foreign and regional alliances for human resources. The demographic trends in the Middle East also indicate that 65 percent of the population is under the age of thirty; one in every three people is between the ages of ten and twentyfour. The unemployment rate is high in the MENA region with a striking feature being that the educated unemployment rate is also fairly high: over 43 percent with tertiary education are unemployed in Saudi Arabia; 24 percent in Palestine; 22 percent in Morocco and UAE; 14 percent in Tunisia; and 11 percent in Algeria. Among the reasons for the high level of unemployment among the educated youth of the MENA region is a persistent gap between the skills acquired at university and the requirements of business. Enterprises consider the lack of suitable skills as the major constraint for the labor force not getting employed. The World Economic Forum (2017) has also identified an inadequately educated labor force as one of the most problematic factors for doing business in the Arab World. Figure 27.2 shows the employment to population ratio, which is the proportion of a country’s

FIGURE 27.2: Employment to population ratio (2019) Source: https://data.worldbank.org/ indicator/IP.TMK.TOTL?end=2018andlocations=ZQandstart=1980andview=chart

OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE MENA REGION

449

population that is employed. Employment is defined as persons of working age who, during a short reference period, were engaged in any activity to produce goods or provide services for pay or profit, whether at work during the reference period (i.e., who worked in a job for at least one hour) or not at work due to temporary absence from a job, or to workingtime arrangements. The overall ratio for MENA is 43 in 2019, with the high-income economies having a ratio in the range of 75–80, whereas some of the low-income economies have a ratio as low as 32 and 33 for West Bank and Gaza, and Jordan, respectively. According to Miller-Idriss and Hanauer (2011), the combination of free primary education in several of the MENA countries, coupled with guaranteed employment in the public sector for the nationals, has created a dearth in the technical jobs or skills that may be required for the knowledge economy, which may not be considered necessary in the public sector. Throughout the region, public sector employment was historically guaranteed to any one of the nationals if they had sufficient education credentials. Thus, credentials were considered more valuable than gaining skills. The unemployment crisis has further deepened due to the political strife being faced by several countries in the region. Studies also point to some of the high-income countries and stable economies which show that the labor market outcomes for the educated have worsened (Krafft, 2013; Rizk, 2016; Salehi-Isfahani, Tunali, and Assaad, 2009; Tzannatos, Diwan, and Ahad, 2016). The economies were also under pressure due to the global downturn in the oil market, placing more pressure on the oil rich countries (IMF, 2017) and an urgent requirement to push for development of human capital in the region.

RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION With the growth of the knowledge economy, the contribution of research in the creation of new knowledge is another outcome from an internationalized education sector. The

FIGURE 27.3: Number of trademarks and scientific and technical journal articles in MENA (2016). Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IP.TMK.TOTL?end=2018andlocations= ZQandstart=1980andview=chart

450

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

educational outcomes through research are identified through copyrights, patents, and trademarks filed, as well as contribution of academics in the field of scientific and technical journal articles published. Compared with those of some of the developed countries, the higher education institutions in the MENA region are less engaged in knowledge creation, knowledge networks, and innovation, which has made the research contribution of the region quite meager. Figure 27.3 shows the number of trademarks and scientific and technical journal articles published in the year 2016. Although there have been efforts by the governments in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Oman to develop research by establishing centers of excellence, innovation centers, and business and technology parks, there is still a lack of cooperative research that addresses issues at the regional level (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). In addition, social constraints on access to data, particularly in the social sciences, do not facilitate conducting research in some parts of the region. Moreover, some of the international databases do not index Arabic language journals, resulting in an underrepresentation of research contribution from the region. Despite these limitations there are some countries which have brought about policy changes to enhance contributions in this area, for example UAE and Tunisia. Similarly, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia has started a unique international collaboration by engaging four world-class universities in designing its curriculum, and collaboration in research for faculties and students from these universities (Ruby et al., 2011). Growth in international research funding, patents, publications, and citations requires the development of internationalized, or globalized, research teams (Woldegiyorgis, Proctor, and De Wit, 2018) and several of the institutions in the region are aiming towards this with the growth of international campuses in the region. Through transnational cooperation in terms of research, it is expected that the region will have considerable contribution in terms of copyrights, patents, and trademarks and the number of citations for scientific journal publications.

INTERNATIONALIZATION THROUGH BRANCH CAMPUSES A number of institutions are undertaking collaborative activities with foreign institutions as part of their strategy, making the association between higher education institutions and a specific locality more fluid than previous years. Barnett (2016), in Kahn and Misiaszek (2019), further emphasizes that the existence of a common policy framework globally has compelled universities to undertake international strategies as it is directly based on factors such as marketization of higher education, a focus on student employability, and increasing use of technology. Some scholars argue that the offshore educational institutions should be understood in the increasing Westernization that is affecting the social and cultural environment (Scholte, 2005). Although a number of scholars from the Middle Eastern countries express their concern regarding erosion of the local language, culture, and value systems, in most of the countries there seems to be a shift from the traditional systems. Arabic, the most widely used language across the region, is seeing the addition of English as a medium of instruction in several of the institutions. Similarly, the reduction or replacement of religious discourses, with few fields of study and changes in the curriculum to suit the

OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE MENA REGION

451

international curriculum trends are some of the changes taking place. An outcome of the increasing internationalization process in the MENA region has been the growth of the branch campus model. Among the several branch campuses all over the world, one third are in the Arab world and many have opened in the last decade. According to Miller Idriss and Hanauer (2011), 34 of approximately 100 branch campuses worldwide are located in the Middle East, and there are an additional 23 institutions or programs in the Middle East region that fall under the category of transnational educational arrangements, such as turnkey institutions or replica offshore institutions. Thus, the total number of institutions or programs considered as transnational is fifty-seven, with UAE having the largest number of branch campuses in the world (Miller Idriss and Hanauer, 2011; Vardhan, 2015). In the MENA region, Qatar has 14 percent of transnational institutions and Egypt has 7 percent, followed by countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. The growth of branch campuses runs parallel with the growth of local higher education institutions. These branch campuses offer specialized professional degrees which may not have been offered in the public sector institutions. There are a number of courses which exist in both private as well as public institutions, offering enough opportunities to students to select from these options. The private institutions, usually a branch of a foreign institution, however, can portray themselves as better equipped to provide quality education as they tend to pay higher salaries than the local institutions, attract more qualified and talented students and faculty, and the recruitment of faculty and staff is not just done locally, but also from overseas. Even student recruitment in the branch campuses is not based locally; students come from throughout the Arab region as well as from the world in cities like Dubai and Doha where many of the branch campuses are located. In several of the branch campuses the faculty recruited may be of a different nationality, religion, or culture just as students in these universities come from diverse backgrounds and nationalities (Miller Idriss and Hanauer, 2011). While attaining international recognition, developing human capital suitable for the knowledge economy, and ensuring a global flow of ideas seem to be the motives behind the institutions in the MENA region pushing for the setting up of branch campuses, there seems to be a strong desire on the part of Western institutions to set up their branch campuses in the Arab region. One of the other reasons observed by the authors is that the Western universities seek funds, and several of the partnerships between the Western universities and the Middle Eastern countries are related to the large endowment funds provided by the governments of these countries. UAE and Qatar are examples where the regional wealth, derived from the region’s rich natural resources, is utilized to fund educational reform and growth. In recent years there has been growth in the mobility of students across nations as well as an increase in the mobility of programs and faculties (Ullberg, 2015). A number of countries in the region see an increasing outward mobility, with a large number of students moving out of their own countries for higher education, sometimes within the region to some other country or sometimes to other Western countries. Figure 27.4 depicts the outward mobility of students of select countries from the MENA region. With a branch campus being established in the region, the international education aspirants find it easier to access international curriculum, academics, research collaborations, and other facilities, with student mobility more pronounced within the region.

452

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 27.4: International mobility of students from some MENA countries. Source: World Education Services, 2018, wenr.wes.org

REGIONAL INEQUALITIES AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES Common tribal ancestral traditions and Islam have combined to create a distinct regional culture, referred to as Gulf Arab culture (Weiffen, 2008), which is expressed through a common regional dialect (Gulf Arabic), similar patterns of dress and food, and other cultural commonalities (Miller Idriss and Hanauer, 2011). However, the region faces stark contrast in terms of its histories and economies. Economic development strategies and strategies for social development in the field of education and higher education also vary between the high-income, oil-producing countries such as Kuwait and United Arab Emirates and the non-oil producing countries like Tunisia and Jordan. Palestine is a State under occupation according to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 19\67 of the year 2012. It has the most unstable security situation in the world due to the Israeli occupation. Confirming the commitment of the State of Palestine to the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, the Palestinian government launched its strategic planning process (Ministry of Education and Higher Education, 2017). However, Palestine is going through a fast population growth and demographic shift, creating challenges for the 2030 agenda for development due to lack of necessary resources in the provision of public services such as education, healthcare, food, and energy. Based on population growth projections in Palestine, the population is likely to increase from 4.75 million in 2015 to 6.9 million in 2030 and 9.5 million by 2050. Another country facing quality issues and regularization in the academic year is Libya. The Libyan Civil war in 2011 resulted in a delay to the start of academic sessions across all levels of education. Several stakeholders, especially the students of the University of Tripoli, considered the quality of education to be an area where reform would be required. Similar to other countries in the region, Libya requires a strong coordination in the education sector with the demands of the labor market. Due to the political challenges, several countries also face an influx of refugees, for example Syrian refugees who flee to

OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE MENA REGION

453

Jordan and Lebanon, so educational reforms also need to consider these associated constraints. The political turmoil has had an effect on the higher education of Egypt too with students unrest, high dropout rates, outdated curricula, no autonomy in the university academics, and administration and graduates with no skills and no future (World Education News, 2019). The Arab Republic of Egypt plays a strategic role in the region due to its geographic location and it being the most populous country in region. However, the political turmoil of early 2010 had a severe effect on the economy, with many Egyptians moving to other countries in the MENA region and also to other foreign shores like the United States, Europe, and Canada. The precarious situation of the education sector in the Middle East and North Africa is mostly seen in countries which are witness to some sort of political or civil strife. For instance, in Egypt, a large number of children in the age group of six to fourteen are working, with a large number of children who drop out after basic education. The countries with high dropout rates were Egypt, Morocco, Yemen, and Tunisia. Among the factors that contribute to the phenomenon of dropouts in the Middle East and North Africa in primary education is the poor quality of infrastructure, non-availability of qualified teachers, and the distance of the schools from the homes of the children. The dropout rate has an impact on the continuing higher education of the students. The examples of the countries above show that the 435 million residents are enduring a hardship owing to ongoing threats to peace and stability. The Arab Spring, and consequently the high unemployment rate among the youth, and political instability have deteriorated the overall economic performance in the region (Brixi, Lust, and Woolcock, 2015). Altbach (2011) notes that the crisis in the Middle East higher education is systemic and requires a reconsideration of the strategy on national higher education. Hence there is a massive push for massification and privatization by the policymakers in these countries and a call for reform across the region.

STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME CHALLENGES According to the World Bank Report (2019), MENA has achieved considerable gains in schooling over the years, but it needs to focus on learning. The report identifies four key tensions that are holding back the region’s education: credentials and skills; discipline and inquiry; control and autonomy; and tradition and modernity. It maps out a strategy to tackle these tensions and unleash the power of education through a concerted push for learning, a stronger pull for skills, and a new pact for education among all national stakeholders in support of education reforms. The push for learning requires not just a focus on the early years of education but also through to the higher education. Along with compulsory education at the primary level for all children, countries also need to focus on creating a culture of academic quality in the institutions, new pedagogical approaches, and better assessment of learning. Egypt and UAE for instance have integrated technology to deliver, support, and manage learning outcomes. The World Bank Report (2019) also recommends the pull for skills to be maintained through education, a pull from the labor market, so as to ensure that the educated youth are also employable. Moreover, the reform in the education sector needs to be accompanied by reforms in other sectors too which have a direct influence on the quality of education. The pull for skills will require curricula reform to ensure the imparting of skills, critical thinking and creativity, and digital skills as required in the current

454

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

technologically advanced and interconnected global market. One of the effects of the education system was a passive system of learning since the curricula depends heavily on rote learning and memorization, leaving little scope for critical thinking and skill development. Inquiry allows one to understand one’s surroundings, contextualize the concepts, and build the skills required. The drill and practice and rote memorization pedagogies have been followed traditionally by the universities as espoused by authoritarian forms of government (Akkari, 2014). To transform the existing teaching practices in order to foster creative and independent thinking skills is the requirement of the current economy. A number of scholars assert that internationalization of higher education would bring about the much-needed knowledge and skills which would be relevant for the economy in future in a borderless world. Knight (2008), for instance, suggests that internationalization of higher education should be able to prepare leaders who can address the global challenges such as ensuring global peace and solidarity and ensuring sustainable development. Meiras (2004) and Chan (2008) emphasize that internationalization would also help in creating cultural sensitivity, building cross-cultural understanding and tolerance, and creating democratic communities. Transnational forces in the form of international standards are being promoted by international communities and governing bodies in the higher education sector. Such models of education that validate the rights of individuals and emphasize cultural diversity have become widely accepted the world over (Sutton, 2005) and the MENA region is no exception. The growth in student mobility and inclusive ideals increasingly forms part of the discourse on internationalization, especially in the Western contexts (Van der Wende, 2001; Turner and Robson, 2008 in Moon, 2016). Some scholars consider the greatest challenge of the MENA region to be aligning the development needs of a modern world with the religious teachings causing tension between modernity and tradition (Cook, 2000). Modernity in the MENA region is associated with Western models, and the traditional education with Islamic teachings. To reap the benefits of education, MENA must align its push for learning with a pull for skills. Despite the perceived benefits and emphasis on global knowledge and skills in higher education, there has been a number of criticisms of internationalization which is considered to be at the expense of local expertise and diversity in education (Bourn, 2011). A number of authors consider the advent of globalization as the new form of cultural imperialism and neo-colonialism, which would create a Western model of the education system across the globe (Rizvi, 2007; Geerlings and Lundberg (2018). Geerlings and Lundberg (2018), in their study, argue for the need to explore social imaginaries of globalization in higher education. They suggest that the education sector in the Asian countries should be open to embracing cultural and academic diversity.

CONCLUSION Education was central to various countries’ struggle for independence, to build national identities, and to help in building national economies. MENA has the lowest share of human capital in terms of total wealth globally (Lange, Wodon, and Carey, 2018). The need for reforms in the higher education sector to realize the intended educational outcomes has to be planned by each of the countries in the region. What is noteworthy is that reform in the education system was initiated as early as 1963 by Tunisia, which convinced the World Bank to help it finance, develop, and promote its education system. In 2018, once again nine countries from the MENA region chose to be early adopters of

OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE MENA REGION

455

the Human Capital Project—a project which focuses on investing in the most precious asset—its youth. MENA has the history, culture, and resources to contribute to the knowledge economy. Educational reforms and human capital development would help the region to be the vanguard for the new and changing economy. It is important to stress that the need for further and broader educational reform in the Middle East and North Africa is inextricably linked to continued economic and political reforms. The aforementioned discussion gives the impression that internationalization of higher education has gradually become to be viewed as “for all,” all-embracing, comprehensive, purposeful, planned, and strategic where the local is blended with the inter-cultural and global dimensions to connect with the ethos and outcomes of higher education. This chapter confirms to the views of Al-Agtash and Khadra (2019), that internationalization can be viewed as a mechanism of enhancing academic values and quality, fostering cultural understanding, promoting mobility, innovation, and best practices in learning and teaching, employability of students in the international job market, and using existing Western mobility networks intensively. The higher education institutions in the region should reflect the opportunities associated with internationalization in enhancing the educational outcomes of the region and the much needed alignment with national identities.

REFERENCES Akkari, A. (2004). Education in the Middle East and North Africa: The current situation and future challenges. International Education Journal, 5(2): 144–153. Akkari, R.K. (2014). Facing the challenges of educational reform in the Arab world. Journal of Educational Change, 15(2): 179–202. Al-Agtash, S., and Khadra, L. (2019). Internationalization context of Arabia higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(2): 68–81. Altbach, P.G. (2011). Reforming higher education in the Middle East—and elsewhere. International Higher Education, 64(2/3). America Magazine (2012). Arab Winter. America Staging. https://www.americamagazine.org/ issue/culture/arab-winter Assad, R. (2010). Equality for All? Egypt’s Free Public Higher Education Policy Breeds Inequality of Opportunity. Policy Perspectives, Economic Research Forum, 2, December 2010. Bourn, D. (2011). From internationalization to global perspectives. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(5): 559–571. Brixi, H., Lust, E., and Woolcock, M. (2015). Trust, Voice, and Incentives: Learning from Local Success Stories in Service Delivery in the Middle East and North Africa. World Bank, https:// doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0456-4 Bratti, M., Knight, N.M., and Smith, J. (2003). Higher Education Outcomes, Graduate Employment and University Performance Indicators, Warwick Economic Research Papers. Chan, D.K.K. (2008). Revisiting post-colonial education development: Reflections on some critical issues. Comparative Education Bulletin, 11: 21–36. Coffman, J. (2003). Higher Education in the Gulf: Privatization and Americanization. International Higher Education. The Boston College Centre for International Higher Education, 33: 17–19. Cook, B. (2000). Egypt’s National Education Debate. Comparative Education, 36(4): 477–490. Eddine, T.S. (2015). Higher education in Algeria: Where are we now? International Journal of Engineering Research And Management (IJERM), 2(11): 47–51.

456

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Ehteshami, A. (2003). Reform from above: The politics of participation in the oil monarchies. International Affairs, 79(1): 53–75. Euronews (2013). Egypt and Tunisia’s new “Arab winter.” https://www.euronews. com/2013/02/08/egypt-and-tunisia-s-new-arab-winter^ Geerlings, L.R.C., and Lundberg, A. (2018). Global discourses and power/knowledge: Theoretical reflections on futures of higher education during the rise of Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(2): 229–240, doi: 10.1080/02188791.2018.1460259 Godwin, S.M. (2006). Globalisation, education and Emiratisation: A study of the United Arab Emirates. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 27(1): 1–14. Hartmann, S. (2008). The Informal Market of Education in Egypt: Private Tutoring and Its Implications. Working Paper no. 88, Johannes Guttenberg Universität Mainz. Hébert Y., and Abdi, A.A. (2013). Critical perspectives on international education. In Hébert, Y., and Abdi, A.A. (eds), Critical Perspectives on International Education. Comparative and International Education (A Diversity of Voices), vol. 15. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Held, D. (2000). Regulating globalisation? The reinvention of politics. International Sociology, Journal of the International Sociological Association, 15(2). IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2017. Regional Economic Outlook—Middle East and Central Asia. Washington, DC : IMF. Jerusalem Post (2013). Analysis: The Arab uprisings. Jerusalem Post, January 2. https://www. jpost.com/middle-east/analysis-the-arab-uprisings-2012-edition Kahn, P., and Misiaszek, L.I. (2019). Educational mobilities and internationalised higher education: Critical perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(5): 587–598, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1625120 Karber, P. (2012). Fear and Faith in Paradise. Exploring Conflict and Religion in the Middle East. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Krafft, C. (2013). Is School the Best Route to Skills? Returns to Vocational School and Vocational Skills in Egypt. Working Paper 2013–09, Minnesota Population Centre, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Lange, G.M., Wodon, Q., and Carey, K. (2018). The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future, World Bank, Washington, DC . https://doi.org/10.1596/978-14648-1046-6 Le Ha, P., and Barnawi, O.Z. (2015). Where English, neoliberalism, desire and internationalization are alive and kicking: Higher education in Saudi Arabia today. Language and Education, doi: 10.1080/09500782.2015.1059436 Masoud, T., Reynolds, A., and Brownlee, J. (2013). Tracking the “Arab Spring”: Why the Modest Harvest? Journal of Democracy, 24(4): 29–44. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/ articles/tracking-the-arab-spring-why-the-modest-harvest/ Meiras, S. (2004). International education in Australian universities: Understandings, dimensions and problems. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(3): 371–380. Mohamed, E., Gerber, H.R., and Aboulkacem, S. (2016). Education and the Arab Spring Resistance, Reform, and Democracy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Moon, R.J. (2016). Internationalization without cultural diversity? Higher education in Korea. Comparative Education, 52(1): 91–108, doi: 10.1080/03050068.2015.1125679 Middle East Eye (2015). Yemen’s Arab winter. Middle East Eye. https://www.middleeasteye.net/ news/yemens-arab-winter

OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE MENA REGION

457

Miller Idriss, C., and Hanauer, E. (2011). Transnational higher education: Offshore campuses in the Middle East. Comparative Education, 47(2): 181–207. Ministry of Education and Higher Education (2017). Palestine. https://web.archive.org/ web/20060822004432/http://www.mohe.gov.ps/ Ng, S.W. (2012). Rethinking the mission of internationalization of higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 42(3): 439–459, doi: 10.1080/03057925.2011.652815 OECD-FAO (2018). Report on MENA Prospects and Challenges, https://www.oecd-ilibrary. org/docserver/agr_outlook-2018-5-en.pdf?expires=1580830232andid=idandaccname=gue standchecksum=88E31927D162519CDFA2B91AEC5C200B Rizk, R. (2016). Returns to Education: An Updated Comparison from Arab Countries. ERF Working Paper 986, Economic Research Forum, Giza, Egypt. Rizvi, F. (2007). Postcolonialism and globalization in education. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 7(3): 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708607303606 Rubin, D. and Kazanjian, C. (2011). “Just another brick in the wall”: Standardization and the devaluing of education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 5(2). Salehi-Isfahani, D., Tunali, I., and Assaad, R. (2009). A comparative study of returns to education of urban men in Egypt, Iran, and Turkey. Middle East Development Journal, 1(2): 145–187. Scholte, J.A. (2005). Globalization: A Critical Introduction. New York: MacMillan Sedrine, S.B. (2009). Tunisia. In Labaki, B. (ed.), Higher Education and the Labor Market in the Arab World. Beirut: Institut Francais du Proche Orient. Skinner, J. (2011). Social Media and Revolution: The Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement as Seen through Three Information Studies Paradigms, Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library 483. http://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/483 Sutton, M. (2005). The globalization of multicultural education. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12(1), Article 3. The Telegraph (2011). Egypt protests: Internet service disrupted before large rally, January 28, 2011. Available online: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/ egypt/8287737/Egypt-protests-internet-service-disrupted-before-large-rally.html Turner, Y., and Robson, S. (2008). Internationalizing the University: An Introduction for University Teachers and Managers. London: Continuum Press. Tzannatos, Z., Diwan, I., and Abdel Ahad, J. (2016). Rates of Return to Education in TwentyTwo Arab Countries: An Update and Comparison between MENA and the Rest of the World. ERF Working Paper 1007, Economic Research Forum, Giza, Egypt. Ullberg, E. (2015). New Perspectives on Internationalization and Competitiveness: Integrating Economics, Innovation and Higher Education. Cham: Springer. UIS (n.d.). UIS statistics. http://data.uis.unesco.org/ Van Der Wende, M.C. (2001). Internationalisation policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14(1): 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S09528733(01)00018-6 Vardhan, J. (2015). Internationalization and the changing paradigm of higher education in the GCC countries. Sage open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244015580377 Wan, C. (2011). Reforming higher education in Hong Kong towards post-massification: The first decade and challenges ahead. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(2): 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.550034 Waters, J., and Brooks, R. (2011). International/transnational spaces of education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(2): 155–160.

458

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Weiffen, B. (2008). Liberalizing autocracies in the Gulf region? Reform strategies in the face of a cultural-economic syndrome. World Development, 36(12): 2586–2604. Woldegiyorgis, A., Proctor, D., and De Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of research: Key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2): 161–176. World Bank (2018). A New Education Approach Is Needed to Prepare MENA Youth to Shape the Future. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/11/11/ a-new-education-approach-is-needed-to-prepare-mena-youth-to-shape-the-future World Bank Report (2019). Expectations and Aspirations: A New Framework for Education in the Middle East and North Africa. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/ mena/publication/expectations-and-aspirations-a-new-framework-for-education-in-themiddle-east-and-north-africa World Economic Forum (2017). The Future of Jobs and Skills in the Middle East and North Africa. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_EGW_FOJ_MENA.pdf World Education News (2019). Education in Egypt. Ramage Y. Mohamed, Makala Skinner, and Stefan Trines, WENR, February 21, 2019. Available online: https://wenr.wes.org/2019/02/ education-in-egypt-2

SECTION IV

Sub-Saharan Africa

459

460

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT

Introduction: Internationalization of Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa EVELYN C. GARWE AND JULIET THONDHLANA

INTRODUCTION Africa is the world’s second largest (both by land area and population) continent, consisting of fifty-four sovereign nations, categorized by international organizations (e.g., UN, World Bank, IMF) into Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and North Africa (Ndulu, Chakraborti, Lijane, Ramachandran, and Wolgin, 2007). Depending on the classifying organization, the number of African countries in SSA varies from forty-six to forty-nine leaving out Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, and sometimes Sudan, Somalia, and Mauritania. Figure 28.1 illustrates the positioning of SSA in the continent of Africa. This classification has been a subject of much debate with some scholars attributing it to geography (location of these countries south of the Sahara desert) and socio-economic status (e.g., Human Development Index and HIV-AIDS prevalence), whilst others question the authenticity of this divide, attributing it to racism and derogation instead (e.g., Mashanda, 2016). Although the SSA countries vary markedly in size (geographical and population), economies, languages, cultures and traditions, governance, institutional capacity, political orientation, policy formulation and implementation, stability, and security, there exist some commonalities that bind the region together. For example, rapidly growing populations, poverty, and diseases are prevalent across the region with thirty-four out of forty-eight countries described as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), where an estimated 41 percent of the population survive below the poverty datum line of $1.25 per day (FAO, 2010; UN, 2015). The region is also characterized by other challenges that hinder development, notably, huge external debts; weak governance structures; gender inequality; civil war; drought; conflicts; refugees; infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS; wastage and corruption. Generally, this section will focus on internationalization of higher education (IHE) in SSA, treating the region as one but recognizing that it is not a homogenous entity. The World Bank (2009) attributes the rapid socio-economic development of countries to the correct match and mix and level of skilled manpower to the labor market. Although 461

462

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 28.1: Positioning of SSA in the African continent.

all levels of education are critical to development, higher education is viewed as an enabler and catalyst for socio-economic development through its capacity to stimulate research, innovation, and change (Bloom, Canning, and Chan, 2006). Sadly, few SSA researchers contribute to worldwide scientific knowledge generation networks. Low investments in higher education and high levels of brain drain exacerbate these problems with PhD holders and university students emigrating to developed countries (Gonzalez-Garcia, Hitaj, Mlachila, Viseth, and Yenice, 2016).

HIGHER EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Contemporary higher education in SSA is shaped largely by the stage of economic development as well as the colonial history. Most of the first higher education institutions (HEIs) started as constituent colleges of European universities wherein the parent university provided quality assurance in terms of curricula, staff appointments, student assessment, and qualification award (Altbach and Kelly, 1978). Examples are shown in Table 28.1. Even after gaining independence from the colonial powers, the emergent universities flourished by maintaining the same foreign higher education systems; for example,

INTRODUCTION TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA CHAPTERS

463

academic and governance structure, curricula and assessment methods. Public investments into higher education increased substantially, for example a World Bank (2010) report revealed that in 2006, SSA’s average annual fiscal expenditure per university student at US$2,000 per year was double the average for other developing countries outside SSA. In addition, HEIs in SSA sustained ties with those in the former colonizers, obtaining generous support from international organizations to the tune of US$600 million annually (Amonoo-Neizer, 1998; World Bank, 2010). From the 1980s onwards, these remarkable advances where overtaken by economic and funding challenges resulting from civil wars, political upheavals, corruption, and the implementation of unsuitable policies (Brock-Utne, 1993; Sawyerr, 2002). These inevitably had an impact on the quality of higher education, considering that they were happening at the same time as HEIs and enrollments were increasing (e.g., HEIs increased from 13 in the 1960s (Table 28.1) to over 300 in 2003 (Teferra, 2007). Accordingly, governments introduced quality assurance mechanisms in order to guarantee the quality of higher education. In addition, there was a heightened call for HEIs to generate alternative sources of funding through cost-sharing, use of ICTs in program delivery, and internationalization initiatives. At the continental level, higher education (and its harmonization) was prioritized

TABLE 28.1 Examples of the colonial origins of higher education in SSA Name, city, and country of constituent college Fourah Bay College Institute of Higher Studies, Tunis, Tunisia University College of Ibadan, Nigeria University College of the Gold Coast, Legon, Ghana University College of Makerere, Uganda University College of Khartoum, Sudan Lovanium (little Louvain) University Centre, Lubumbashi Congo Institute of Higher Studies, Dakar, Senegal University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Harare, Zimbabwe Institute of Higher Studies, Antananarivo, Madagascar Luanda and Huambo Institutes, Angola Royal College of Nairobi, Kenya Universities of General studies, Mozambique

Year of establishment

Parent university and country

1927 1945

University of Durham, UK University of Paris, France

1948

University of London, UK

1948

University of London, UK

1949

University of London, UK

1949

University of London, UK

1949

Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium

1950

University of Bordeaux, France

1955

University of London, UK

1955

University of Bordeaux, France

1958

Portugal

1961

University of London, UK

1962

Portugal

464

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

as one of the seven key focus areas of the African Union (AU)’s Action Plan for the 2nd Decade of Education (2006–2015). Intra- and inter-regional partnerships were identified to be critical to the improvement of higher education. Notable inter-regional partnerships include: the Africa and European Union Harmonisation of African Higher Education Quality Assurance and Accreditation (HAQAA), phase 1 implemented from 2016 to 2018; the PASET project funded by the World Bank in collaboration with Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) and HEIs in SSA. Intra-regional partnerships in higher education include the emergence of the Association of African Universities (AAU), the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA), and the African Virtual University (AVU). Indeed this growing convergence and accompanying efforts have become a precursor for more structured regionalization and internationalization initiatives and drive. Whilst regionalization and internationalization are not necessarily synonymous concepts (Mngomezulu, 2017), it is critical to mention here that the two are closely linked, with the former being regarded as a sub-set of the latter (Sehoole and de Wit, 2014).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SSA There is a global consensus that the benefits accruing from IHE abound (Sehoole and Knight, 2013). Whilst some scholars have noted that IHE is given less strategic prominence by developing countries (e.g., de Wit, Rumbley, Cr ciun, Mihut, and Woldegiyorgis, 2019) inclusive of SSA, it is considered critical for every HEI to embrace IHE and for every nation to demonstrate commitment towards IHE through policy reforms and strategies in order to fully and continuously improve their global positioning. Given the interdependencies amongst higher education systems, there is a clear assumption that there exists a common understanding of IHE as well as comparable practices and outcomes regardless of context. As such the IHE models that are recommended for use, although of Western origin, are expected to be one size fits all. Whilst admitting that IHE is critical for competitiveness and sustainable development at institutional, national, regional, and international levels, a survey of 1,336 HEIs worldwide by the International Association of Universities in 2013 revealed that IHE approaches and impact, vary from region to region (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014). For SSA these variations are influenced by historical as well as prevailing internal and external political, socio-economic, and academic factors (Jowi, 2012). In some cases, IHE, viewed from the lenses of the West, can also have negative consequences in the SSA context. A case in point is that of the massive brain drain and outbound student mobility from the South to the North (Mohamedbhai, 2018). For example, UIS (2012) statistics reveal that SSA is surpassed only by Asia regarding the numbers of students studying at foreign universities. As such, there have been calls for SSA countries to decolonize IHE and develop their own contextualized, home-grown IHE approaches towards development (ibid.). This stems from the fact that many countries in SSA share the same development challenges and identify with aspects of IHE mostly influenced by their former colonizers or external models and potencies of Western and recently Asian origin. However, what exactly decolonizing IHE entails is a subject of much debate, which some of the chapters in this section address. For Sub-Saharan Africa to leverage higher education to meet the sustainable development goals by 2030, there is a need for its HEIs to raise the quality of higher

INTRODUCTION TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA CHAPTERS

465

education. Mainstreaming IHE by adopting and treating it as a strategic issue is one way of achieving far-reaching gains both intra- and inter-regionally. IHE would normally entail increasing the proportion of physical and virtual mobile students, staff, researchers, qualifications, and institutions, collaboration (in teaching, research, facilities, as well as human and material resources) at regional and international level and internationalizing curricula. These activities should not be treated as goals in themselves but should help develop competencies that would lead to positive gains for individuals, nations, and regions (De Wit, 2011). Policy frameworks and strategies at institutional, national, regional, and global levels are critical in adopting strategic approaches to IHE. The most commonly cited IHE challenge for Sub-Saharan Africa is absence of strategic mechanisms to support and facilitate IHE activities. In these contexts, the development of national IHE policies are therefore considered critical in guiding IHE practice in HEIs. This section, on internationalization of higher education in SSA, is a compilation of the developments, experiences, and challenges peculiar to the region as well as those that are comparable to other regions. Its aim is to provide information for benchmarking, comparative analysis, guidance, and decision making to HEIs, academics, governments, quality assurance agencies, researchers, students, curriculum developers, and international personnel. This section interrogates historical perspectives of higher education and the extent to which IHE has (or has not) metamorphosed in Sub-Saharan countries. Whilst the section does not take the encyclopaedic approach of including a chapter on every country, the six Anglophone country chapters included are representative enough to identify commonalities and particular directions. The selection of the countries included was based on geographical location, level of global engagement (as judged by publicly available contributions to IHE conversations), type of colonial history, as well as the availability of reputable scholars willing and able to contribute a country chapter on IHE. This section is divided into eight chapters, the current one on introduction to IHE in Sub-Saharan Africa, six country chapters, and a concluding cross-cutting chapter. The chapters engage with IHE aspects of critical importance, also incorporating empirical evidence on certain aspects of IHE within the countries in question. This expose of country-specific scenarios creates fertile ground for the concluding chapter to highlight and interrogate commonalities and peculiarities within the region. These patterns and trends form the basis of the comparative analysis that constitutes the concluding chapter of this handbook of IHE in the global South. This introductory chapter gives a snapshot of the ensuing chapters focusing on the different contexts of Ethiopia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria.

KEY THEMES A thematic approach is adopted wherein each chapter, although having a focus unique to the peculiarities of the country, is crafted around a set of identified cross-cutting themes. For example, providing an overview of the higher education system of each country was considered critical in putting the IHE debate into context critical when making comparative analyses. For instance, countries that have suffered a colonial past tended to have similar post-colonial challenges. Each chapter explores some or all of the following issues regarding IHE: ●

Overview of higher education system

●

Institutional and national IHE policies

466

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

●

Approaches to IHE

●

IHE research

●

IHE and technology

●

Future aspirations and directions on IHE.

THE CHAPTERS Chapter 29: Internationalization of Higher Education in Ethiopia: From a Fragmented Dispensation to a Cohesive Path Chapter 29, representing SSA countries with no colonial legacy, gives an account of the trajectory of IHE in Ethiopia and the extent to which policy intentions, existing frameworks, approaches, and institutional practices are propelling IHE towards a more coherent path and the possible implications of these developments. Although IHE has always featured throughout the historical development of higher education (starting with religious education dating more than 1,700 years through to contemporary higher education introduced in 1950) in Ethiopia, it has been characterized by a range of fragmented efforts at an institutional level (devoid of structure, budget, and institutional strategy). This is attributed to a lack of clearly defined policy frameworks at national level to guide HEIs in their internationalization activities. A notable exception is that of the regulatory framework for cross-border higher education. The chapter describes the huge efforts made towards a more systematic and strategic approach to IHE with various HEIs beginning to develop IHE policies and strategies, albeit still uninformed by a comprehensive national policy. The principal features of IHE manifestation include: mobility of people, programs, and institutions; collaborative research; curricula, as well as approaches to teaching and learning.

Chapter 30: Two Decades of Internationalizing Higher Education in South Africa Chapter 30 focuses on IHE developments in South Africa, representing those countries with complex colonial legacies. The chapter situates IHE in South Africa within a context marred by apartheid, characterized by domination and marginalization of certain groups of people and certain international dogmas, resulting in a closed higher education space and hence a slower uptake of IHE. Focusing on inward student and staff mobility, the authors describe how South African higher education rapidly transitioned from isolation to become an emerging hub of higher education, drawing international students and staff from the region and abroad. The chapter illustrates how the rapid increase in numbers of inward bound students during the first decade of democracy waned somewhat in the second decade of democracy. Notwithstanding the apparent decline, South Africa remains an IHE giant in other respects, notably in the numbers of published research, HEI reputation, and high global rankings. The authors attribute the high rankings to the bias by the well-ranked South African HEIs towards partnerships with global North institutions.

Chapter 31: Internationalization of Higher Education in Zimbabwe Chapter 31 details IHE in Zimbabwe, a country whose rich higher education system was affected by economic challenges forcing it to introduce philosophical and strategic

INTRODUCTION TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA CHAPTERS

467

reforms in higher education in order to remain competitive. Although IHE has always existed in Zimbabwe, emerging from the strong links with the former British colonizers, the alienation of the country from the Commonwealth and the sanctions imposed on it led to diminished international engagements. Thus as part of its harmonization of higher education and international re-engagement endeavor, Zimbabwe sought to strengthen intra- and inter-national cooperation by developing a comprehensive and decolonized national policy framework to inform and guide the IHE domains of practice in HEIs. The IHE framework was aimed at articulating policy goals in relation to Zimbabwe’s transformative agenda of an industrialized and modernized nation and the contribution of the higher education sector to that agenda as well as adopting a unified approach to tackle common IHE challenges. The chapter commences by giving a brief overview of the higher education system in Zimbabwe before focusing on the intricacies concerning the development of the IHE framework. This approach is crucial considering that very few countries that have developed IHE policies, document publicly the development process in order to increase transparency, reveal areas of best practice, open avenues for cooperation and building intra-country synergies, as well as informing others who wish to develop their own policies. The authors give an exposé of how the IHE policy formulation project commenced with a scoping study of IHE in Zimbabwe that informed the process, and involved all stakeholders in mapping the way forward using the theory of change methodology and how experts and benchmarking added value to the process and the goal.

Chapter 32: Internationalizing Higher Education: An Exploratory Analysis of Policy Frameworks, Challenges, and Opportunities Chapter 32 is set in the Ghanaian context where IHE is only just emerging as a key agenda for propelling its HEIs to become more visible globally. The chapter details the phases (Africanization, nationalization and development, internationalization and globalization) and the attendant reforms, policies, and strategies that the higher education sector in Ghana has gone through since attaining its independence in 1957. Despite the absence of a national IHE policy, HEIs in Ghana are guided by strategic plans and focus on IHE as a source of funding, student and staff mobility, as well as international collaborations but with limited emphasis on internationalization at home. The chapter also delves into the challenges faced by HEIs in their efforts at internationalization, including but not limited to: inferiority complex and dependency syndrome, North/South dichotomy and power imbalances, stigmatization, limited funding and research, and lack of national policies. In responding to these challenges and considering the difficulty in trying to match standards of the dominant neoliberal Western discourse of internationalization, HEIs are being encouraged to proffer a different understanding and vision of internationalization grounded primarily on the realities and needs of their own context. This is premised against a backdrop of colonial legacies and neoliberal ideologies and their continued impact on the IHE processes.

Chapter 33: Accounting for Internationalization in Kenya’s Higher Education System Chapter 33 details the IHE development in Kenya where IHE was used as a clear strategy to generate funds after the effects of the Structural Adjustment program. By way of

468

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

background and situating IHE, the chapter commences with the rude awakening of casting a critical decolonial light by highlighting the pressures exerted upon HEIs in the Global South (SSA and Kenya included) to internationalize on the pretext that this makes the institutions “strong conduits” for “knowledge economies” flow. Accordingly, HEIs respond by developing IHE strategies driven by an aspirations to attain “World-class Status” embedded as part of the institutions’ vision and mission statements. The chapter then sets out the policy context around which IHE is taking place in Kenya. IHE is seen both in the context of traditional partnerships and in the recent HEI internationalization strategies. In favor of IHE, the chapter argues that the upward trend in research and publications, as well as support to doctoral programs, would not have been possible without the affordances of the various partnerships formed with external partners in accordance to institutional internationalization strategic pursuit. The challenges of IHE for Kenyan HEIs pertain to, first, the absence of a coherent national government policy to moderate institutional practices to the advantage of Kenya given a preponderance of cases where external partners may be driven by commercial and political motives. Second, the IHE strategies that are examined are skewed towards external partners and hence do not encourage mutual and equal benefit. HEIs see internationalization as a cash cow accruing support from external partners for their benefit without them contributing and also improving their brands through leveraging these relationships. This undermines the mutuality undergirded by the ethics of IHE and may create a system of patronage by the external partners.

Chapter 34: The Internationalization of Higher Education in Nigeria Chapter 34 dwells on IHE in Nigeria, the most populous country in SSA, which has an estimated population of 186,988 million as of 2016. With a total of 170 universities, nearly half of them public, the country has over six times more universities than South Africa. The chapter provides an overview of the IHE spectrum set in both the historical and the present context of higher education. The main focus of the chapter is to explore internationalization structures, practices, and activities for selected HEIs in Nigeria. Key features of IHE are the international office, the internationalization of classrooms, leadership training, research, quality assurance systems, and student mobility. Observing that Nigeria has no national IHE policy and that not many HEIs are committed to internationalization, and that those who are operate on individual and ad hoc bases, the chapter takes a unique approach of providing recommendations on how countries in similar situations can take advantage of a strategic and proactive approach to IHE.

REFERENCES Altbach, P.G., and Kelly, G.P. (eds) (1978). Education and Colonialism. New York: Longmans. Amonoo-Neizer, E.H. (1998). Universities in Africa: The need for adaptation, transformation, reformation and revitalization. Higher Education Policy, 11: 301–309. Bloom, D., Canning, D., and Chan, K. (2006). Higher Education and Economic Development in Africa. Washington, DC : The World Bank. Brock-Utne, B. (1993). Language of instruction in African schools—a socio-cultural perspective. Nordisk Pedagogik, 4: 225–247. De Wit, H. (2011). Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalisation of Higher Education. Centre for Applied Research on Economics & Management. School of Economics and Management of the Hogeschool van Amsterdam.

INTRODUCTION TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA CHAPTERS

469

De Wit, H., Rumbley, L.E., Cr ciun, D., Mihut, G., and Woldegiyorgis, A. (2019). International Mapping of National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs) Analytical Report 1. Boston College Centre for International Higher Education. Egron-Polak, E., and Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of higher education: Growing expectations, essential values International Association of Universities (IAU). 4th Global Survey Report. Paris, France: IAU . Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010). The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Gonzalez-Garcia, J., Hitaj, E., Mlachila, M., Viseth, A., and Yenice, M. (2016). Sub-Saharan African Migration: Patterns and Spillovers. Washington, DC : International Monetary Fund. Jowi, J.O. (2012). Re-thinking internationalization and what it portends for Africa. IAU Horizons, 17(3) + 18(1), Re-thinking Internationalization: 29. Mashanda, T.C. (2016). Rethinking the term “Sub-Saharan Africa.” Realist Echoes. The African Exponent, April 5, 2016. Available online: https://www.africanexponent.com/bpost/ rethinking-the-term-sub-saharan-africa-36 Mngomezulu, B.R. (2017). Internationalization and Africanisation in a globalising world. In Cross, M., and Knight, J. (eds), Knowledge and Change in African Universities. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 183–194. Mohamedbhai, G. (2018). The internationalization of higher education in Africa: Strategies for meeting the development challenges. Africa Policy Review Journal. Available online: http:// education.africapolicyreview.com/education-youth-development/the-internationalization-ofhigher-education-in-africa-strategies-for-meeting-the-development-challenges/ Ndulu, B., Chakraborti, L., Lijane, L., Ramachandran, V., and Wolgin, J. (2007). The Challenges of African Growth: Opportunities, Constraints and Strategic Directions. Washington DC : World Bank. Sawyerr, A. (2002). The public good in African higher education: Select issues for policy. Newsletter of the Social Science Academy of Nigeria, 5(1): 25–30. Sehoole, C., and Knight, J. (eds) (2013). Internationalization of African Higher Education. Boston, MA : Sense Publishers. Sehoole, C., and de Wit, H. (2014). The regionalisation, internationalization, and globalization of African higher education. International Journal of African Higher Education, 1(1). https:// doi.org/10.6017/ijahe.v1i1.5648 Teferra, D. (2007). Higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Forest, J.J.F., and Altbach, D.P.G. (eds), International Handbook of Higher Education. The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 557–569. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2012). Global flow of tertiary-level students. Available online: http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow United Nations (2015). Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, July 6, 2015. New York: United Nations. Available online: https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/ pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf World Bank (2009). Accelerating Catch-up: Tertiary Education for Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC : The World Bank. World Bank (2010). Financing Higher Education in Africa. Washington, DC : The World Bank.

CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE

Internationalization of Higher Education in Ethiopia From a Fragmented Dispensation to a Cohesive Path WONDWOSEN TAMRAT

INTRODUCTION The uncontested prevalence of internationalization and its contribution towards addressing the various needs of higher education is a common theme that abounds in the wider literature (Knight, 2012; Altbach, 2015; de Wit, Howard, and Egron-Polak, 2015; UNESCO, 2019). Owing to its multifaceted and strategic advantages such as human resource development, knowledge generation, and resource acquisition, internationalization has become a central aspect of higher education that many countries across the globe cannot afford to ignore. Many systems and institutions accordingly recognize the critical impact of internationalization in shaping their missions, strategic planning, and operational practices, and embrace it both as a useful concept and an operational agenda (Knight, 2008; 2012; de Wit et al., 2015; Guri-Rosenblit, 2015; Soliman, Anchor, and Taylor, 2019). In fact, the increased attention given to internationalization of higher education (IHE) over the last few decades has enabled it to move from reactive to proactive, from the margins to the center, and from added value to mainstream of the academic enterprise (de Wit et al., 2015). However, in spite of its increasing importance, internationalization remains an underresearched domain in many parts of the developing world, including the African continent. In Ethiopia there is in general limited knowledge and understanding of IHE, though this should not be construed to mean that internationalization has been totally neglected as an institutional undertaking or as an area of interest (Tamrat, 2019). With the traditional forms of internationalization such as academic mobility having a long history predating the introduction of Western education in the country, the utilization of IHE as a capacitybuilding tool in the realms of teaching/learning and research has been a consistent manifestation of the higher education sector in Ethiopia. This longstanding desire and practice has been further fueled by the expansion and increasing complexity of the higher education sector since the end of the 1990s. Dictated by external developments and 470

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

471

emerging institutional needs, a plethora of activities such as academic mobility, research collaborations, employment of foreign staff, and cross border higher education continue to evolve as major manifestations of IHE. Notwithstanding the accompanying challenges, efforts in this direction have, however, been fragmented and happening in the absence of clear national and institutional directions. Against the backdrop of little relevant available empirical work, this chapter examines the trajectory of IHE in Ethiopia by outlining its routes from a disjointed past to a more cohesive path envisaged for the future. The chapter begins by highlighting the study approach, and offers a brief overview of the Ethiopian higher education context, followed by a discussion on the various manifestations of IHE and the conclusion of the study.

STUDY APPROACH The primary methods used for this study were document analysis and unstructured interview. Documentary evidence was collected from a variety of published and unpublished sources. These included government plans and development strategies, higher education policies, annual education statistics abstracts, websites of government agencies, ministries, development partners, embassies, and universities that have a significant role in the internationalization of higher education in Ethiopia. Information was also obtained using telephone and face-to-face unstructured interviews with relevant authorities, entities, and individuals concerning issues about which further information had to be sought.

BACKGROUND Ethiopia is situated in the horn of Africa on a total land area of about 1.24 million square km. It is the second most populous country in the continent with 102 million people and more than 80 ethnic and linguistic groups. Ethiopia is administered through a federal structure comprising nine regional states and two city administrations. In the population, 44% are under fifteen years old. Those between fifteen and sixty-five years make up 53%, while those below thirty years constitute more than 70% (UNDP, 2018). Those still living in rural areas make up 80% of the Ethiopian population. With an annual population growth rate of 2.6%, a high rate of in-migration to towns and cities, and an annual urban population growth rate of 4.4%, the share of Ethiopia’s population living in urban areas is expected to double by 2050 (an estimated 70 million urban dwellers in a population of 190 million) (MoE, 2015). Ethiopia recorded a remarkable economic growth rate of around 10% per year over the period 2003–4 to 2012–13—double the regional average of around 5%—and envisions becoming a middle-income country by 2025. Policy directions are set towards the use of science, technology, and innovation as the major tools of transforming Ethiopia into a middle-income country, which demands building human resource capacity through huge investment in education. That appears to be why in the past two decades the government has demonstrated its continued commitment to expanding equitable access to quality and relevant higher education.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA: AN OVERVIEW The education system in Ethiopia comprises eight years of primary education; four years of secondary education; two to three years of technical and vocational education (TVET);

472

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

three to five years of undergraduate studies; and two to four years of postgraduate studies. The goal for higher education is: to produce competent graduates who have appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes in diverse fields of study; to produce research which promotes knowledge and technology transfer based on national development and community needs; and to ensure that education and research promote the principles of freedom in exchange of views and opinions based on reason, and democratic and multicultural values. —MoE, 2015: 37 Ethiopia’s intellectual legacy is significantly rooted in its traditional religious higher education system that has embodied its cultural, spiritual, literary, artistic, and scientific life for more than 1,700 years (Wagaw, 1990). Ethiopia’s religious education has been mainly represented by the teachings of the Ethiopian Orthodox church and that of Islam introduced in the 4th and 7th centuries, respectively. The Ethiopian traditional education system represented by Orthodox Christianity teachings, for instance, involves an elaborate and hierarchical religious education that takes decades to complete, consisting of successive tiers of elementary, secondary, and tertiary education; while Islam similarly offers another route of indigenous educational system that comprises teachings at the lower and higher levels, that have grown through interaction with centers of learning in the Middle East (Zewde, 2002).The beginning of Western education in Ethiopia was neither dictated by colonialism, which held sway from the end of the nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth in Africa (Zewde, 2002) nor by the desire to modernize the traditional education system that existed for more than 1,700 years. It was rather spurred by Ethiopia’s interest to learn the secrets of the West in order to defend its sovereignty, which was threatened after the advent of European colonialism in the nineteenth century. After its victory over European colonialism in 1896, Ethiopia’s independence was thought to be at stake unless it quickly adopted to the Western way. The historic victory of Adwa in 1896 was a resounding affirmation of Ethiopia’s independence. But it did not completely solve the nature of the relationship that the country was to have with the outside world, and above all with Europe. By the end of the nineteenth century it had become quite evident that Ethiopia could not exist in splendid isolation. Its circumscription by European colonies gave the whole question urgency and palpability. The large influx of foreigners into Ethiopia after Adwa also raised the question of how to relate to them and how to handle them. Conversely, the increasing number of Ethiopians who went abroad, mostly to Europe, and returned with some form of exposure to Western education, or at least Western ways and habits, kept the issue of Ethiopia and the West very much alive. Indeed, the whole gamut of reforms that the intellectuals championed could be viewed within the rubric of Ethiopia and the West, as it was the West that constituted the terms of reference for intellectual discourse (Zewde, 2002: 103). King Menelik II, under whose leadership the Italians were defeated at Adwa, shared this view and set up Ethiopia’s first modern Western school in 1908 under his own custodianship. The introduction of modern higher education is a relatively recent phenomenon that began with the establishment in 1950 of the University College of Addis Ababa (UCAA) by Haile Selassie I. Despite the benign wishes and efforts made to expand higher education, the modest developments that took place upto the beginning of the 1990s did not manage to accommodate more than 1% of the relevant age group, putting Ethiopia among the list of sub-Saharan countries that had limited tertiary-level

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

473

participation (World Bank, 2003). Since the policy directions set out in its 1994 Education and Training Policy (Transitional Government of Ethiopia, TGE, 1994), the incumbent government has embarked on an aggressive scheme of expanding access at all levels of the education sector. This has resulted in the growth of public universities from two to fifty and private higher education institutions from none to over 230. As a consequence, the number of students enrolled in higher education institutions in 2017 grew to 901,798 (MoE, 2018a). While the majority of enrollment is at undergraduate level, there were 76,795 postgraduate students (including master’s and PhD) that constituted 8.5% of total enrollment. Female students comprised 37% of total enrollment at undergraduate level and 18% at postgraduate level. Despite their burgeoning numbers, private higher education institutions (PHEIs) currently enroll 17% of undergraduate and 6.2% of postgraduate students (MoE, 2018a). Government plays a dominant role in providing higher education to the wider segments of society. The total number of faculty working in HEIs has grown fast over the last decade, reaching 33,258 (MoE, 2018a). However, the qualification of university staff is far below the levels prescribed by the national Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency (HERQA), which set the standard as 30% PhD, 50% master’s, and 20% bachelor’s.

IHE IN ETHIOPIA: RATIONALES AND MAJOR MANIFESTATIONS IHE manifests itself in many ways in Ethiopia. The discussion below explores some of the major features preceded by the rationales behind internationalization.

Rationales for Internationalization A cursory glance at the mission and vision statements of Ethiopian universities suggests that most of them aspire to become part of the international network of HEIs and even excel at regional and global levels. HEIs view internationalization as a mechanism of building their internal capacities and meeting their aspirations of becoming the best institutions locally, regionally, and at an international level. Research has also shown that the dominant motivations for internationalization in Ethiopia relate to teaching and research collaborations, international research projects, academic quality and standard, and mobility and exchange of students/teachers that facilitate institutional development (Tamrat and Teferra, 2018). However, lately, an economic imperative appears to have been added to the earlier long-standing academic rationale as expressed in the Educational Sector Development Program V: The development of connections and collaborations between Ethiopian and international institutions will be extended so that international dialogue and exchange can advance the breadth and quality of academic programmes and research in institutions and enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning. Collaboration with international institutions is mainly aimed at importing and exporting international and local experiences, knowledge, technologies, social and cultural experiences. Staff and students’ exchanges and joint academic and research programmes will be enhanced via various partnerships and programmes to attract regional students. —MoE, 2015: 110; author’s emphasis

474

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

People Mobility Outbound Student Mobility Student mobility continues to be a high priority of internationalization in its diverse forms, driven by a whole gamut of factors that operate at the individual, institutional, national, and global levels (Knight, 2012; Bhandari, Farrugia, and Robles, 2018). Although Ethiopia has never been colonized, the roots of its modern Western education are traced back to the arrival in the nineteenth century of missionaries to the country. Having identified education as a useful tool for proselytization, missionaries were actively involved in opening schools and sending promising students abroad half a century before the first modern school was established in 1908 (Zewde, 2002). There were also a number of Ethiopians who studied abroad and came back to provide government services as secretaries, translators, interpreters, envoys, and advisers during the times of Kings Yohannes Tewodros, and Menelik II. Menelik II’s involvement in sending students abroad included those who were studying at his school (Fisseha, 2002; Yohannes, 2002). These early efforts saw a significant leap from the 1920s onwards when Emperor Haile Selassie I was still the regent, both in the number of students traveling abroad and the mechanisms in which student mobility was executed. While those who received their education previous to the 1920s had no specific destination as such, the mobility of students after the 1920s were conducted in a more organized fashion with particular preference for France as the major destination (Zewde, 2002).This was partly dictated by the regent’s love for the French with whom he had close relations since his childhood. Between 1920 and 1935 a total of 200 Ethiopian students went abroad through government or private means; in 1950 a similar number of Ethiopian students went to Europe (90), United States (60), Canada (20), India and Middle East (30) (Maaza, 1966; Zewde, 2002). The influence of the British in Ethiopian education became apparent from early 1940s to the mid-1950s, when they assumed an important place in the country owing to the military assistance they gave during the liberation war of 1941. This changed in the late 1950s through the mid-1970s, when Ethiopia’s relationship shifted to the United States, allowing the dominance of the Americans in all spheres of government functions. In fact, in this particular period, an increasing number of opportunities were made available for students traveling abroad with American agencies like Point Four, USAID, the African American Institute, and the African Graduate Fellowship Program directly involved in offering scholarships (Zewde, 2002). As a consequence, the training of Ethiopians in the United States, which started with two medical students in the 1920s, surpassed the 1,000-student mark by the early 1970s, making Ethiopia the third African country (after Nigeria and Egypt) with the largest number of students in the United States (Getahun, 2002). Among the 6,613 Ethiopians who studied abroad between the years 1964–65 to 1973–74, 70% undertook their studies in the West, including the United States (Tsemiru, 1984). The majority of students who completed their studies at the University College of Addis Ababa (UCAA) were also recruited for further foreign studies immediately after their graduation. For instance, out of the 186 graduates between 1954 and 1960, 150 left abroad on scholarship (Wagaw, 1990). Following the overthrow of Emperor Haile Selassie I in 1974, Ethiopia’s alliance shifted from the West to the former Eastern Socialist Bloc countries. As a result, from 1974-1977 the USSR hosted 36% of Ethiopian students, followed by the United States (18%), the United Kingdom (5%), Czechoslovakia (5%), Hungary (3%), and Yugoslavia (3%) (CHE, 1978). The percentage of students who went to socialist countries ballooned

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

475

to 93% in 1980–81, though it plummeted again to 57.5% in 1982–83 (Tsemiru, 1984). In fact, going abroad for higher degrees before the 1980s was unavoidably a compulsory exercise since Ethiopian institutions did not offer any in-house postgraduate programs. The first such initiative was undertaken by Addis Ababa University, which opened a few master’s programs in 1978. One major effect of this initiative has been the gradual reduction of students sent abroad for postgraduate programs. Outbound student mobility has further expanded since the incumbent government overthrew the Dergue government in 1991. Despite the lack of firm statistics on the subject, thousands of Ethiopian students are currently believed to be pursuing their studies outside their country through a variety of government and private means and arrangements. According to the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS, 2017), the number of Ethiopian students enrolled in degree programs abroad doubled from 3,003 in 1998 to 6,453 in 2017. This is very low compared with 89,094 Nigerians, 14,012 Kenyans, and 12,988 Sudanese studying in degree programs at foreign universities, perhaps due to a lack of disposable income in Ethiopia (Trines, 2018). The United States appears to be the most popular destination among Ethiopian degreeseeking students, accounting for 24.5% of international enrollments, per UIS data. Beyond the United States, Ethiopian international students are dispersed in smaller numbers over a variety of countries, including Finland, India, Italy, Norway, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey. According to the International Institute of Education (IIE, 2015), Ethiopia sent 1,472 students to the United States in 2014–15 alone, up from 888 in 2013–14. According to Trines (2018), the number of Ethiopian students in the United States peaked at 2,120 in 1984–85 before declining in the early 2000s. Inbound flows from Ethiopia have since fluctuated but are generally on an upward trajectory. Between the 2007–8 and 2016–17 academic years, the number of Ethiopian students in the United States increased by 40%, from 1,316 to 1,847. The majority of Ethiopian students (59%) were enrolled at the undergraduate level compared with 26% at the graduate level and 15% in non-degree programs. In Canada, the number of Ethiopian students has doubled over the past decade, but remains small, with 405 students in 2017, according to government data. Ethiopian students also comprise the largest African student contingent of the Erasmus Mundus program in Europe (University World News, 2008). A recent disclosure from the European Union (EU) indicated that Ethiopia is included in the list of countries with the highest number of Erasmus staff and students going to Europe next to Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, South Africa, Ghana, Senegal, and Kenya (Yordanova, 2019). Information obtained from the European Union Office in Addis Ababa shows that, so far, 700 master’s and 300 PhD European scholarships have been offered to Ethiopian students. Related information from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) reveals that funding support was given to 937 recipients involved in the schemes of individual funding, project funding, and academic mobility (DAAD, 2017). Within the Asian continent, India remains one of the highest scholarship providers to Ethiopian students. There is no UIS data available for China, but China has lately joined the list of countries involved in the provision of university scholarships and vocational and professional training. China is Ethiopia’s largest trading partner and actively promotes academic exchange through university partnerships and scholarship programs. In 2018 alone, the Chinese government provided more than 1,450 scholarships for Ethiopians, mostly short-term vocational training, but also graduate programs at Chinese universities. According to Chinese figures, the number of Ethiopian students enrolled in degree and

476

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

non-degree programs in China has more than tripled since 2011, standing at 2,829 in 2016. Information from the Chinese embassy in Addis indicates that they offer around 400 scholarships to Ethiopian students every year. The outbound mobility of Ethiopian students is partly aided by government sponsorship schemes. Among the most recent such local initiatives is the Betre Science Ethiopia Scholarship Program that was initiated and launched in 2017 by the new Prime Minister, Dr. Abiy Ahmed. This initiative is an exclusive scholarship program for holders of Gold Medals and expected to be fully funded by the Ethiopian government with the purpose of producing young scientists in various fields of studies (Teferra, 2018). India—the largest partner in this scheme—took 630 students in the first year alone. The major objectives of sending Ethiopian students abroad are closely linked with the desire to address the deficiency of qualified human resources and/or the absence/lack of higher training at the local level. Higher education institutions are also in favor of this strategy because they believe that such exchanges could be catalysts for: future institutional linkages; the exchange of language, knowledge, and culture; student exposure to different ideas and knowledge; and enhancing access to different programs than are available in Ethiopia (IIE, 2015). At an individual level, Ethiopian students studying abroad have a similar positive view because of the benefits of international education such as quality of training, broadening one’s exposure, and future career prospects (Tamrat and Teferra, 2019). Tamrat and Teferra (2019) further indicated that the student mobility trend of the past is set to continue, driven by additional factors such as the availability of scholarships, the demand for developing critical skills, the search for quality education, the potential of foreign study in enhancing future career prospects, and improved chances for future employment through international education. However, despite its importance, student mobility abroad has not been necessarily successful in producing the required number of qualified personnel needed at the local level. One major challenge has been the level of brain drain being experienced. Yigezu (2013), for instance, notes that between the years 1994–5 and 2004–5 alone around 1,706 Ethiopians were trained abroad but very few of them returned back. Inbound Student Mobility There is no clear evidence as to when foreign students began to attend Ethiopian institutions of higher learning. The first organized move by an Ethiopian higher education institution to accept foreign students was perhaps the one initiated at the end of the 1950s by Emperor Haile Selassie I. In 1958 Haile Selassie made a pledge at the Conference of Independent Countries held in Ghana to offer 200 scholarships for college studies in Ethiopia, with the promise that fifty students would annually join the University College of Addis Ababa (later called Haile Selassie I University, HSIU). Under the Haile Sellassie I Scholarship Program, many students from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan, Nigeria, and Ghana came to join HSIU (Balsvik, 1979). The Dergue had a similar policy whereby students from other African countries such as South Africa and Namibia were encouraged to attend institutions like Addis Ababa University as an expression of solidarity with the then liberation movements in the aforementioned countries. Notwithstanding recent government encouragement towards the same direction (MoE, 2015), Ethiopian HEIs have been keen to attract more foreign students in order to enhance joint research and collaboration; to promote cultural, knowledge, and language exchanges; to raise institutional profiles with foreign professors; to help institutions become more globally competitive; and to expose students to another culture and

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

477

worldview (IIE, 2011). The websites of universities like Jimma describe their future intentions to attract more foreign students but this is an objective that lacks clearly articulated plans and strategies—a key ingredient if HEIs want to be successful on this front (Helms, Rumbley, Brajkovic, and Mihut, 2015). Nevertheless, there are public universities that teach scholarship and recruit fee-paying international students. The 2015–16 data from the Ministry of Education (MoE, 2016) indicates that there was a total of 1,642 foreign students in Ethiopian HEIs. There are self-sponsoring students from countries such as Kenya, Uganda, and Djibouti studying at Ethiopian universities (Ethiopian Herald, 2019). There are also students from foreign communities living and working in Ethiopia and refugees who live outside their camps and who enroll in institutions of higher learning through their own financing (Tamrat and Dermas, 2019). A significant number of foreign students in Ethiopian institutions of higher learning are drawn from free local scholarships offered by the Ethiopian government. Arguably, the highest share in this regard is taken by refugees sheltered in Ethiopia. This has been implemented through the cooperation of UNHCR and its Ethiopian counterpart Administration for Refugee and Returnee Affairs (ARRA). In 2018–19 alone, about 610 scholarship opportunities were given to undergraduate and postgraduate students mainly from Somaliland, Puntland, and Somali Republic. It is thought that the scholarship opportunities will enhance mutual relationship through the exchange of culture, knowledge, and experience among the countries. The UNHCR is also involved in offering its popular Albert Einstein German Academic Refugee Initiative Fund (DAFI) international scholarships for refugees in Ethiopia. Twenty-eight public higher education institutions in Ethiopia currently host DAFI scholarship students (UNHCR, 2018). Among the 729 students enrolled in 2017 in the DAFI scholarship program, 388 came from Somalia, 169 from Sudan, 88 from South Sudan, 63 from Eritrea, 13 from Yemen, 7 from Congo Brazzaville, and 1 from Burundi (UNHCR, 2018). This scheme is assumed

FIGURE 29.1: Foreign students in Ethiopian HEIs by field of studies (2015–16). Source: Author computation from Ministry of Education statistics (MoE, 2016).

478

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

to continue in the future given the new refugee law (FDRE, 2019) that allows refugees to have improved access to higher education. Staff Mobility International mobile faculty play a key role in internationalizing tertiary education by integrating international, intercultural, and comparative perspectives into education and boosting international profiles through publications and projects tied to their networks (Knight, 2012). The nature of staff mobility in various contexts ranges from academics sought by elite research universities to those hired to address local shortages, along with “transient” academics who continue academic careers in the countries where they obtained their doctorates (Rumbley & de Wit, 2017). The mobility of academics—researchers, scholars, and teaching staff—is usually hard to track due to its complex nature (OECD, 2008; Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley, 2009). Hence, getting tangible data on the subject is most often difficult. Owing to this and challenges related to poor documentation, there is little aggregate data that show the overall trend of staff mobility from Ethiopian higher education institutions to other countries on short-term or long-term arrangements either to continue their studies on a scholarship basis or as part of the collaborative research agreements they have with other institutions. This is despite the fact that the mobility of scholars has had a long history in Ethiopia. The earliest movement of scholars from Ethiopia to foreign countries appears to have occurred after Ethiopia’s relationship with Europe was reinstated in the nineteenth century—two centuries after the expulsion of the Jesuits from Ethiopia in 1632 due to their failed attempts to change the religion of the country to Catholicism, which was met with fierce opposition from the local population. The nineteenth-century activities of the Protestants (especially Church Missionary Society (CMS) based in England and Basel, Switzerland) who pioneered missionary activity in Ethiopia, and the Catholics (both Lazarist and Capuchin) who competed with them, were not restricted to evangelism but involved the provision of Western education either by establishing schools or sending converts abroad (Zewde, 2002). There were beneficiaries of such opportunities who later served the government as secretaries and interpreters. There was also a limited number of Ethiopian scholars who left for Europe to participate in the various studies on and about Ethiopia undertaken by and in collaboration with European scholars. This includes renowned names like: Abba Gorgoreyos who contributed to the works of the German Hiob Ludolf; Alaqa Kefla Giyorgis of Ankobar who went to Rome, where he taught the famous Italian Ethiopianist Ignazio Guidi, author of a renowned Amharic-Italian “Vocabolario,” which was published in Rome, in 1901; Alaqa Tayya of Gondar who traveled to Germany, where he rendered valuable service to Enno Littmann and several other German scholars; and Fesseha Giyorgis, of Yeha, who made a major contribution to Italian studies of Tigrinya and many Ethiopian religious matters (Pankhurst, n.d.). Interest in sending Ethiopian scholars to foreign institutions abroad has been a continuous activity championed by Ethiopian successive kings who saw the benefits of deploying foreign educated Ethiopian intellectuals in the service of the state as secretaries, translators, interpreters, and envoys (Zewde, 2002). A similar practice has also been reflected within the education sector since its inception. The Ethiopian higher education sector has a long experience of attracting foreign scholars to serve at Ethiopian institutions. In fact, the modern training of its intelligentsia and the development of modern higher education institutions are marked by heavy foreign influence manifested in the form of borrowing foreign systems, leaders, advisers, and teachers. The history of modern education in in its formative years is especially reflective

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

479

of the heavy dependence on international faculty who left their indelible marks in the establishment of schools, the design of policies and curricula for the local system, and who served as principals, advisers, and teachers at various strata of the education system. When Menelik II School was opened in 1908, it relied on Egyptian Copts who took the responsibility of teaching and administering the school. Both the principal and teachers in the Teferi Mekonen School—the second modern Western school in the country— established later in 1925, were mainly French. Until the eruption of the Italo–Ethiopian war in 1936, out of a total of 230 teachers working in around twenty schools that existed across the country, thirty were foreigners (Wagaw, 1990). The first three decades after 1941 were the times when foreign influence assumed its peak within the Ethiopian education system, with the majority of staff drawn from Europe, as well as Indian contract teachers and US Peace Corps volunteers. The Peace Corps Program, which was launched in 1962, alone provided opportunities for placing many American teachers in the schools accounting for 23.6% of the country’s teaching force and 51.8% of the expatriate staff, which included 340 Indians (Amare, 1984). The establishment and administration of HEIs in the country exhibited similar features of dependence on international faculty. When UCAA was established in 1950 its president and all the teachers were non-Ethiopians. In fact, UCAA had no Ethiopian faculty until 1954. The same was true of a handful of other local colleges that sprouted up from 1950–1960. Expatriates accounted for 75% of the AAU staff in 1961 (UNESCO, 1988), and 56% of the staff in the academic year 1968–69 was drawn from the United States, England, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany (Amare, 1984). The growth of the higher education system over the last three decades has contributed to the further dwindling of foreign nationals in the higher education sector, with Ethiopians assuming various positions previously held by foreigners. However, the expansion has also ironically increased the demand for foreign nationals due to the human resource shortage, especially in science and technology areas, where 70% of the programmatic focus of Ethiopian institutions is currently directed. One major challenge of the expansion has been the significant decline in the qualification of university staff needed for teaching and research (World Bank, 2003). Given this practical need, the government has clearly stated its position in using foreign instructors as a stopgap measure until local capacity is fully developed (MoE, 2002). Ethiopian HEIs are also keen to attract more foreign scholars motivated by factors such as the possibility of engaging in joint research and academic collaboration; bolstering cultural, language, and knowledge exchange; and helping local institutions become more globally competitive (IIE, 2011). Currently around 8% of the more than 33,000-person higher education workforce is made up of expatriates and there is a plan to raise this to 10%, as stated in its fifth Education Sector Development Plan (MoE, 2018a). Institutions also host visiting professors from different foreign universities participating in teaching, curriculum development, and research (Semela and Ayalew, 2008). A significant number of international staff is currently recruited from countries such as India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Cuba, Europe, and other countries, the bulk coming from the first three (Tamrat, 2019). Apart from fulfilling the demand for more qualified academics, the employment needs for foreign educators are mainly driven by additional factors such as longer-term partnerships, joint research and collaboration, new programs and knowledge, and the need to bolster global competitiveness and gain “a global experience” (IIE, 2011). The overall intention has been related to the capacity-building efforts of Ethiopian institutions and the quest for raising their visibility and reputation.

480

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 29.2: Foreign staff in Ethiopian HEIs (2002/03–2017/18). Source: Author computation from Ministry of Education statistics (MoE, 2018a).

The recruitment and hiring process of foreign staff has been effected through a variety of mechanisms, including the direct involvement of the universities and/or the intermediation of recruiting agencies, which have recently sprung up, capitalizing on this new market. However, this plan is facing various challenges related to pay scale, acceptance from students and faculty, etc. that could hamper its success. Arguably, the unabated expansion of the higher education sector will continue to require more foreign teachers until such time that Ethiopia’s efforts in boosting its internal capacity can satisfy the existing and evolving demand for foreign faculty. However, the overall plan of attracting and using international faculty requires responding favorably to the existing challenges of recruitment and maintenance and ensuring that envisioned goals are not derailed by intermittent changes, capacity limitations, and various aberrations (Tamrat, 2019).

ICT and Internationalization In its revised National ICT Policy and Strategy (2016), the Ethiopian government identified ICT as a key driver and facilitator in transforming the country into a knowledgebased economy and information society—a fundamental component in meeting Ethiopia’s aspiration to become a middle-income country and in achieving improved public service delivery and greater government openness. Despite these aspirations, the sector faces a wide array of bottlenecks that include poor infrastructure, low levels of internet penetration, a poor communications network, lack of organized data and information resources, and a shortage of the requisite human resources. In spite of the various efforts taken to promote the development and application of ICT, Ethiopia continues to lag behind even its neighbors. The World Bank’s 2016 report that assessed the country’s potential for the electronics and ICT manufacturing industry indicated that internet use and/or access in Ethiopia was 15% while it stood at 26% in Kenya and 28% in Sudan. Mobile phone (2G/3G/4G) penetration rate was 44%, while the figure for Kenya and Sudan was 100.8% and 73.4% respectively. Access to mobile broadband (3G) in Ethiopia was 8.8%, compared with 38% in Kenya and 15.6% in Sudan.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

481

Government efforts to address these deficiencies have included the recent decision to privatize the telecommunications sector. Until that decision, Ethiopia remained one of the three countries in the continent (next to Eritrea and Djibouti) whose telecommunications sector was fully owned by the government. Ethiopia’s ICT Policy and Strategy (2016) recognizes the crucial role of ICT in enhancing the educational system and promoting access and quality of education. Next to infrastructure, and the legal and regulatory environment, the development of human capital provided through education is identified as one of the three foundational essentials that underpins all other aspects of the policy and the sector. In addition to giving due emphasis to the role of human resources, the policy envisages the need to make improvements in terms of digital skills, development, and exploitation of ICT across all types of institutions, updating and developing ICT curricula, creating the necessary infrastructure and interconnectivity for and among institutions, and making available training and learning opportunities that include tele-education and virtual learning. Among the most promising developments in the higher education sector is the establishment of Ethiopian Educational and Research Network (EthERNet) that has been established with the major objective of “providing state-of-the art electronic communication services at the national level by connecting all of the academic and research institutions to one another, and to the global Internet” (World Bank, 2003: 70). It is part of the major strategies that are considered as the pillars of the ICT development plan in Ethiopia (Hare, 2007). In line with this initiative, in September 2019, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education put into effect a new national open access policy that requires universities to deposit their publicly funded research outputs in the National Academic Digital Repository of Ethiopia, which is backed by the Ministry (Tamrat, 2019). In addition to encouraging open access to publications and data, the new policy incorporates “openness” as one of the criteria to be used for assessment and evaluation of research proposals undertaken at national level. Beyond strengthening the quality of Ethiopian research, this initiative is expected to have a significant impact on increasing the visibility of Ethiopian research within national and international research circles. Over and above the promise held by this national platform, individual universities have also been involved in automating a variety of their academic and non-academic services and utilizing ICT for academic and research purposes (Tamrat, 2019). Government plans are underway to widen such experiences across the whole sector. Under its broader goal of enhancing relevance and quality of higher education, the Education Sector Development Programme, ESDP V (whose implementation period is ending in 2020), envisages providing ICT and internet connections to all public universities. Specific targets include enabling all university students to access digital libraries and increasing the percentage of smart (ICT-supported) classrooms to 25%. Ethiopia’s new Education Development Roadmap (2018–30; MoE, 2018b) similarly identifies ICT as one of the major areas where the education sector has to undertake significant shifts in the years to come. However, there are still considerable challenges that hinder the achievement of these ambitious goals.

Internationalization at Home English as an International Language English remains a foreign, rather than a second, language in Ethiopia with nothing like the scope and historical importance it has in most Anglophone African countries where its history is connected with colonialism (Bloor and

482

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Tamrat, 1996). Phillipson (1992) concedes that individual attitudes in Africa and elsewhere may favor English, despite making a forceful, extended attack on the “linguistic imperialism” of English, but the situations that he discusses are primarily ex-British (or American) colonies. The role of English outside the education system is considerably more limited in Ethiopia than in most so-called Anglophone countries in Africa. Although there are obvious neo-colonialist factors, English in Ethiopia is free of much of the colonial baggage that it carries in Anglophone Africa and is even seen as a means of personal advancement (Bloor and Tamrat, 1996). The language policy towards English has traversed different routes covering four significant periods in Ethiopia. As noted earlier, French was substituted with English as a medium of instruction in schools after the liberation from the Italian occupation of 1941. After having continued to serve as a medium of instruction, from the early 1940s, the place of English was first usurped by Amharic when the latter was declared as the medium of instruction for elementary education in 1958–59. Backed by the 1931 Ethiopian constitution, the Haile Selassie I government promoted Amharic as the national official language of the imperial state, marking Ethiopia as the only endoglossic African nation where an indigenous language started to serve as the sole national official language (Leyew, 2012). Despite its recognition of local languages and some efforts to promote their use, the Dergue further endorsed the use of Amharic as a medium of instruction in schools. The Dergue even had a plan of substituting English with Amharic as a medium of instruction at tertiary level but this eminent threat to English was averted when the incumbent government assumed power and came up with a new tapestry of language use in the country. After the EPRDF took power in 1991, it reconfigured the roles of languages in Ethiopia into three: English (international), Amharic (national), and Vernacular (local) (Transitional Government of Ethiopia, 1994). Amharic was chosen to serve as the national language of communication while the use of local languages as the primary vehicles for primary education or grades 1–8 began to be widely practiced (FDRE, 1994). English is now being taught as a subject from grade 1 and serves as the medium of instruction at secondary and tertiary levels. The increasing demand for the use of local languages other than Amharic must have offered up a renewed interest in English as a more “neutral” language, thus ensuring its future. Though the promotion of English may have facilitated the internationalization efforts of Ethiopian HEIs, its poor mastery both by students and faculty continues to pose a significant challenge (MoE, 2018a). In spite of the positive attitudes towards English, there has been a considerable dissatisfaction over the years with the proficiency attained by students and instructors. The level of proficiency acquired has always been dismal to the extent of seriously disrupting the quality and standard of lessons provided and the internationalization efforts of higher education institutions (IIE, 2011). As a consequence, many continue to question the value of teaching in English and its negative impacts in promoting inequality (Stoddart, 1986; Tekeste, 2006; Leyew, 2012).

Internationalization of Curricula Leask (2015: 9) defines the internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) as “the incorporation of international, intercultural and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods and support services of a program of study”. As noted by Helms et al. (2015), IaH remains a much less developed aspect of internationalization in many higher education contexts

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

483

despite its potential to affect a broad majority of students as opposed to the typically limited proportion of students who participate in activities abroad. The overwhelming presence of foreign principals, administrators, and teachers at the early stages of the Ethiopian modern education system had resulted in their significant influence over the curriculum and teaching materials provided at various levels. Previous to the 1936 Italian invasion, the modern schools in Ethiopia had a strong European orientation in the subjects chosen, the curricula adopted, and the methods of lesson delivery. Since French was used as a medium of instruction up to the completion of their elementary studies, students were expected to sit for a French Certificate in the Primary Studies examination that had been prepared for French children (Amare, 1964). When the medium changed from French to English after 1941 a similar trend followed. Apart from teaching all academic subjects in English, curricula and textbooks primarily designed for the schools were imported from England (Balsvik, 1979; Asayehgn, 1979). The curriculum in secondary schools was also based on the London Matriculation Examination and the General Certificate of Education (Wagaw, 1990). A similar practice was pursued at the University College of Addis Ababa where the teachings and textbooks, as well as the organizational structures of the university, were modelled on American universities (Kebede, 2006). From 1952 to 1958 alone, more than 3,500 professional textbooks for teachers, over 495,000 copies of textbooks, and 292,530 copies of periodicals for students were either imported from the United States or produced by the Point Pour establishment in Ethiopia (Ethiopia Observer, 1958: 7, as quoted in Asayehgn, 1979). Tailoring the curriculum and teaching materials to Ethiopian needs at the Haile Selassie University was not an easy task. As noted by Kehoe (1962: 476): “Haile Selassie University students, are required to carry the same number of courses, of comparable difficulty, as their British contemporaries attending lectures in their mother tongue. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Ethiopian’s achievement is not always of the first order.” All this was happening against the wishes of the government, which preferred a more “Ethiopianized” teaching and localization of curricula. In one of his public speeches, Emperor Haile Selassie I indicated: “A fundamental objective of the University must be the safeguarding and the developing of the culture of the people which it serves. This University is a product of that culture; it is the grouping together of those capable of understanding and using the accumulated heritage of the Ethiopian people” (Imperial Ethiopian Ministry of Information, 1967: 19–20). The most critical argument and practical plan in support of opposing the Europeanization trend came from Earnest Work, an American educationalist who was employed by the emperor to offer his advice on the educational system that Ethiopia should adopt. Work (1934) vehemently argued that instructions should be given in a local language and the content of textbooks and teaching materials should also be about Ethiopia and what is relevant to learners. But it was not easy to implement his recommendations for decades to come due to the lack of materials and qualified personnel that were critical in realizing the ambitions. Towards the end of the 1960s some attempts began to be exerted to make tertiary curricula relevant to the local context by including courses such as the study of Ethiopian history, Ethiopian geography, etc. and the creation of “the Institute of Ethiopian Studies” with its museum and library. However, courses dealing with Ethiopian legacy, environment, and socio-economic problems were still accused of being largely Eurocentric both in inspiration and content (Kebede, 2006). Similar efforts were also made during the time of the Dergue whose curricular reforms mainly focused on introducing socialist orientations into the previous curricula, which was viewed as “feudalistic” (Tsemiru, 1984).

484

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Writers contend that in many contexts IoC is progressing from an area studies and foreign-language approach to the integration of international, global, intercultural, and comparative perspectives into the teaching and learning process and program content (Knight, 2012). Towards this end, the Ethiopian higher education proclamation (FDRE, 2019) stipulates that the preparation of curricula and graduates at Ethiopian HEIs should incorporate an internationalized dimension. Although Ethiopian HEIs are involved in a variety of curricular reforms and initiatives that incorporate joint ventures with foreign universities, little is known about how much the ideas captured in the proclamation have been translated into practice. Over the last two decades, Ethiopian HEIs have passed through a series of curricular reforms including initiatives related to curriculum changes, the harmonization of higher education, and the introduction of the European Credit Transfer System. For instance, as of 2012, most public universities introduced an Ethiopian Credit Accumulation and Transfer System based on international experiences (Abebaw and Adamu, 2015). However, the curricular changes undertaken by universities are still blamed for detracting from practical contexts, being full of unexamined theoretical directions, disregarding local and traditional values, and being under the influence of foreign ideas of one sort or another (Melese and Tadege, 2019). Hence, the concern about the pitfalls of borrowing curriculum and instructional practices directly from outsiders and applying them in a different cultural context like Ethiopia still continues as a worrying trend.

International Cooperation and Research Collaboration Notwithstanding the infrastructural support provided through external help, the most dominant type of support Ethiopian universities have been getting through international cooperation is perhaps in the area of capacity building and research. Foreign governments, embassies, bilateral agencies, and multilateral organizations have been at the forefront of providing assistance to the higher education sector. According to Yizengaw (2005), the major development partners offering financial and technical assistances have been especially identified as UNICEF, the European Union (EU), USA/USAID, UK/DFID, UNDP, World Bank (WB), Japan, Ireland, Finland, World Food Program (WFP), Germany, ADB, and UNESCO for the general education (mainly for primary and secondary levels of education) and Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, World Bank (WB), and the EU (mainly for the tertiary sector). International cooperation especially plays an important part in research collaborations and the running of postgraduate programs. For instance, research funds for projects and PhD programs at Addis Ababa University are mainly obtained from international partners like the Sida/SAREC, the Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education (NUFFIC), British Council, European Union, World Bank, UNESCO, Department for International Development (DfID), UNDP, etc. (Gebre-Mariam, 2009). Apart from partly ameliorating the financial constraints of universities, such schemes have been useful in creating opportunities for experience, skill sharing, and the enhancement of graduate school education, which is still the main stay of research engagement at Ethiopian HEIs. Notwithstanding the lack of clear and comprehensive strategies for building and sustaining effective partnerships with foreign partners, Ethiopian HEIs exhibit significant interest and participation in collaborative schemes. Institutions believe this would facilitate knowledge and cultural exchange; improve the quality of education and the development of curricula; generate funds; create better technology linkages;

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

485

enhance facilities and equipment; allow further training of staff; and facilitate extensive connections with other universities, private organizations, and NGOs (Semela and Ayalew, 2008; IIE, 2011; Tamrat and Teferra, 2018). In this regard, Ethiopian HEIs share the consistent pattern exhibited by most African HEIs that use internationalization as a tool for strengthening institutional capacities in teaching, research, and knowledge production (IAU, 2014; Oyewole, 2009). Most international relationships undertaken by Ethiopian HEIs are largely North– South, with Europe identified as the most preferred continent for international engagement, distantly followed by North America (Tamrat and Teferra, 2018). Most Ethiopian universities have a long tradition of signing Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with universities in other countries. However, the potential effects of donor aid and international cooperation in terms of encouraging genuine partnerships and influencing policy directions in Ethiopia have not been always positive. This form of engagement is hampered by factors such: as lack of information; lack of support for effective partnership; and lack of a clear and comprehensive strategy for engaging with foreign institutions (IIE, 2011). Ethiopian HEIs have been accused of having limited interest in academic and student mobility then entering into a few long-term strategic partnerships that align with their key purpose of improving the performance of universities through activities such as: the development of joint academic programs and/or double degrees; joint supervision of graduate students; collaborative research projects; joint services to the community; and possibly joint benchmarking exercises (World Bank, 2017). In most cases, local institutions are mere “recipients” of cooperation schemes, with the elements of reciprocity missing from their agreements. There have also been reported instances of Northern partners seeking to achieve their own objectives without much regard to the needs and aspirations of their local partners (Tamrat and Teferra, 2018). These lopsided partnerships are mainly attributed to the disparity in financial resources or capacity and the failure of local institutions in establishing relationships from a point of relative strength. The Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap (MoE, 2018b: 61) envisages future improvement in research performance to come through: improvements in infrastructure; promotion of local journals; increased budget for research; improvement in university support systems provided to research services; allocation of more staff time for research, and the promotion of improved university industry linkage. Only time will tell if, and to what extent, these aspirations will be fulfilled.

Transnational Higher Education (TNHE) As one manifestation of IHE, transnational higher education can be realized through a variety of modalities, including: the movement of students to the hosting country (people mobility); programs moving to the importing country (program mobility); and institutions moving to the recipient country (institution mobility) through partnership arrangements that can range from franchise configurations to articulation or twinning programs to joint and/or synchronous delivery (Knight, 2008; OECD, 2008; Helms et al., 2016). From the early 2000s, foreign institutions like the African Virtual University, the Open University, UK, the University of South Africa, and Indira Gandhi National Open University, as well as other similar institutions, have made their presence felt in the Ethiopian higher education scene. The major reasons that account for this growth have been the unmet demands for postgraduate education and the profit motive that attracts cross-border higher

486

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

education (CBHE) institutions to deliver their services to a new market. Currently fewer than half a dozen cross-border providers operate in Ethiopia, mainly on the basis of program mobility. The only exception is the University of South Africa (UNISA), which has a branch campus in the capital city. The most common partnership scheme established between TNHE providers and local institutions is that of distance education where the local partner provides all the services but the degree is issued in the name of the foreign institution. There are currently a couple of thousand students attending tertiary education at programs offered in collaboration with a handful of foreign providers in the country. In terms of the levels of programs delivered, almost all institutions work at postgraduate level and provide lessons mainly in business and management areas of study through a combination of both distance and online modes. This is perhaps an indication that there is an increasing interest of commercializing higher education, which appears to encourage foreign institutions to eye Ethiopia as a potential market. Ethiopia’s response to this trend has been one of regulating this new form of educational provision. This is in tune with the growing complexity of the internationalization landscape, especially student mobility, which is raising new questions and issues regarding the granting and recognition of qualifications (Knight, 2012). In Ethiopia, the role of accrediting TNHE providers is a recent phenomenon relegated to the national Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency (HERQA), which is entrusted with the task of supervising the quality and relevance of the higher education provided. According to the regulatory guidelines developed by HERQA (2011), foreign providers are required to establish partnership with an accredited local institution before offering their programs. Similarly, the foreign institution must be an accredited institution in its country of origin registered with the relevant authority. HERQA assesses the standards and preparation of both institutions on the basis of which the accreditation is granted. The role of the local university is restricted to major functions such as registration, distribution of printed materials, collection of payment, and offering tutorial lessons while the foreign institution has the role of quality control, course and material provision, and the issuing of credentials. While the development of TNHE regulations has assisted in curbing the illegal encroachment of foreign providers, there are issues such as reconciling the demand for foreign education with the need for robust and balanced quality assurance schemes at a local level that can hinder the success of this modality. HERQA is currently modifying its regulations to accommodate these conflicting needs.

IHE as a Strategic Activity: Perceived shifts and New Policy Directions Successful IHE efforts are most often accompanied by carefully crafted policies and strategies at national, sectoral, and institutional levels (Knight, 2008; Altbach, 2015). Contrary to what is often thought, the internationalization of higher education as a coordinated engagement embodying policies, strategies, and actual practices both at national and institutional levels is a recent phenomenon that is little spread across the globe (British Council, 2018; Cr˘aciun, 2018; Helms et al., 2015). Although there are recognizable initiatives within the global landscape, contexts that treat internationalization as a “comprehensive,” expansive, and cross-cutting phenomenon, with implications for the quality and relevance of higher education, are very rare (Helms et al., 2016; Cr˘aciun, 2018). Cr˘aciun (2018) further argues that with 80% of countries worldwide currently lacking internationalization strategy, IHE remains mainly a developing country phenomenon in terms of its strategic organization and direction.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

487

Government policies in Ethiopia have lately begun to emphasize the critical role of internationalization in the improvement of the higher education sector. Although the government’s plan to develop its long overdue national policy of internationalization was declared in 2015 in its Education Sector Development Programme (ESDP V, 2015/16– 2019/20; MoE, 2015), the second higher education proclamation issued earlier (FDRE, 2009) identifies the creation of internationally competitive graduates as one of the objectives of higher education and emphasizes the need for conducting joint research projects with international institutions. On top of planning for the development of a new policy and strategic plan for internationalization, ESDP V (2015/16–2019/20; MoE, 2015) embeds IHE activities geared towards teaching and research as operational directions that all higher education institutions should pursue. In addition to advancing the breadth and quality of academic programs, research, and teaching and learning, IHE is considered to be essential for importing and exporting international and local experiences, knowledge, technologies, and social and cultural experiences (MoE, 2015). ESDP V specifically plans the share of joint academic programs with international partners to be 10%; percentage of foreign staff to increase from 8% to 10%; and share of joint research programs undertaken in collaboration with non-Ethiopian universities to be 20% (MoE, 2015). Ethiopia’s latest Education Development Road Map (MoE, 2018b) further acknowledges the need for promoting IHE as a key means of ensuring quality higher education by identifying three areas as the major components of what it calls “new strategies for internationalization”: (1) building the capacity of HEI in attracting students and staff from overseas, and research grants; (2) internationalization of teaching and research activities without compromising the country’s development need; and (3) encouraging staff and student mobility programs (MoE 2018: 55). In light of the above broad and strategic considerations, the need for structural changes, both at national and institutional levels, has been firmly established. This includes the establishment of a national unit or body for marketing, monitoring, and evaluating internationalization of Ethiopian higher education, the establishment of an international liaison office, and the development of an international collaboration strategy (MoE, 2015). ESDP V (MoE, 2015) further encourages HEIs to draw a significant portion of their research funding from international sources through joint academic and research programs. In addition to encouraging staff and student exchanges, exposure visits, and joint academic and research programs, the plan seeks to develop and implement a strategy for attracting foreign students including through border universities and branch campuses. Higher education institutions are responding to these changes by hiring foreign instructors, generating research funds from and in collaboration with foreign partners, and even opening branch campuses in neighboring countries such as Somalia with the prime intention of augmenting their internal revenue (Tamrat, 2019). These are clear indications that the hitherto ill-coordinated, limited, and fragmented IHE activities are steadily acquiring improved frequency, diversity, and complexity both at national and institutional levels. Ethiopian HEIs are increasingly considering IHE as an important activity for the purposes of promoting teaching and resource mobilization, international research projects, and academic quality and standards (Tamrat and Teferra, 2018). Apart from augmenting their IHE activities, pertinent statements of internationalization strategies and goals are increasingly being incorporated in the missions, strategic plans, and directions of universities (Tamrat and Teferra, 2018; Tamrat, 2019). The foregoing changes are suggestive of the moves that IHE in Ethiopia is making away from its earlier ad hoc and reactive profile to a systematically administered proactive

488

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

undertaking both at sectoral and institutional levels (Tamrat and Teferra, 2018). Yet for the new directions to bear meaningful results and take a foothold, a number of core issues need to be addressed. Based on past experiences and new directions set in the Ethiopian Education Roadmap (MoE, 2018b), one would assume that the dominant reason that drives IHE at the institutional level has been capacity building and the improvement of quality in teaching and research. This is not surprising given the aggressive expansion of the sector and the need to enhance institutional improvement. However, the new government plan includes income generation as an additional motive. Higher education institutions are encouraged to open foreign campuses and attract foreign students (MoE, 2015). While this may broaden existing rationales, clear directions need to be set in terms of prioritization and the institutional strategies to be adopted. Implementing IHE plans requires the development of the needed framework and capacity for internationalization both at national and at institutional levels. While there are institutions that are steadily strengthening their engagement in IHE, there are still others that appear to be devoid of the IHE policies, structure, budget, and institutional strategy needed to promote internationalization (Tamrat and Teferra, 2018). The Ministry of Science and Higher Education’s (MoSHE) current plan of developing an internationalization policy may partly respond to this challenge but the government, and particularly the Ministry, must continue to follow up, support, and monitor institutional achievements towards the same end. Moreover, moving towards a new direction of IHE requires addressing issues like the dangers of fraudulent activities that can impinge on the success of TNHE, challenges related to student and staff mobility, brain drain, the language of instruction, and the attraction of foreign faculty, which should assume better articulation and enough space in the national and institutional policies and strategies expected to be developed.

CONCLUSION The involvement of Ethiopian institutions of higher learning in IHE has been clear from their inception. Most of their engagements have been dictated by the need for capacity building and addressing the deficiencies of the system and of individual institutions. However, until very recently the internationalization of higher education has been undertaken with little planning and coordination at national and institutional levels. However, efforts that have been made over the past few years are a clear indication of the move from a fragmented dispensation to a cohesive path. There is an increasing recognition on the part of the government and Ethiopian HEIs about the values of internationalization as an important undertaking for promoting teaching and research collaborations, mobilization of international resources, enhancement of academic quality and standards, and, lately, drawing additional income. The Ethiopian higher education system is now in the throes of establishing a fullfledged IHE scheme in concert with envisaged national and institutional goals. The Ministry of Science and Higher Education has lately organized a special task force to produce a national IHE policy, which is already underway and is planned to come out in 2020. Given this strategic move, emerging developments, and interests within the higher education sector, it can be posited that the internationalization of the Ethiopian higher education sector will assume a significant strategic posture in the years to come. Success in treading this path, however, requires a more organized and coordinated move that demands consolidating the new initiatives and seeking the right balance between local, national, regional, and global roles (de Wit, Gacel-Ávila, Jones, and Jooste, 2017).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

489

REFERENCES Abebaw, Y., and Adamu, A. (2015). The contribution of Credit Accumulation and Transfer System: Lessons to the Ethiopian National Qualifications Framework. Bahir Dar Journal of Education, 15(1): 1–10. Altbach, P. (2015). Knowledge and education as international commodities. International Higher Education, (28): 2–5. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2002.28.6657 Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L., and Rumbley, L.E. (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO. Amare, G. (1964). Education and the Conflict of Values in Ethiopia: A Study of the SocioMoral Problems Arising Out of the Introduction of Modern Education in Ethiopia. PhD thesis, Southern Illinois University. Amare, G. (1984). Education and society in prerevolutionary Ethiopia. Northeast African Studies, 6(12): 61–67. Asayehgn, D. (1979). Socio-economic and Educational Reforms in Ethiopia (1942–1974): Correspondence and Contradiction. Paris: UNESCO. Balsvik, R.R. (1979). Haile Selassie’s Students: Rise of Social and Political Consciousness. PhD thesis: University of Tromsø, Norway. Balsvik, R.R. (1985). Haile Sellassie’s Students: The Intellectual and Social Background to Revolution, 1952–1977. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University and Norwegian Council of Science and the Humanities. Bhandari, R., Farrugia, C. and Robles, C. (2018), International Higher Education: Shifting Mobilities, Policy Challenges, and New Initiatives. (Background paper for Global Education Monitoring Report 2019.) Bloor, T., and Tamrat, W. (1996). Issues in Ethiopian language policy and education, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(5): 321–338, doi: 10.1080/01434639608666286 British Council (2018). The shape of global higher education: The Americas. London: British Council. Council for Higher Education (CHE) (1978). Higher Education in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Commission for Higher Education. Cr˘aciun, D. (2018). National policies for higher education internationalization: A global comparative perspective. In Curaj, A., Deca, L., and Pricopie, R. (eds), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 95–106. DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) (2017). 2017 Annual Report: Sub-Saharan Africa. Bonn: DAAD , pp. 102–105. De Wit, H., Howard, L., and Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels, Belgium: European Parliament. De Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Jones, E., and Jooste, N. (2017). The Globalization of Internationalization: Emerging Voices and Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. Ethiopian Herald (2019). Ethiopia offers over 600 scholarship opportunities. Ethiopian Herald, January 19, 2019. Available at: https://www.press.et/english/?p=1684# Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) (1994). Education and Training Policy. Addis Ababa: St. George Printing Press. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) (2019). Higher Education Proclamation 1152. Addis Ababa: FDRE .

490

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Fisseha, A. (2002). Education and the formation of the modern Ethiopian state, 1896–1974. PhD thesis submitted to University of Illinois. Gebre-Mariam, T. (2009). Graduate studies and research at Addis Ababa University: Past and present. Addis Ababa: AAU . Getahun, S. (2002). Brain drain and its effect on Ethiopia’s institutions of higher learning, 1970s–1990s. African Issues, 30(1): 52–56. Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: Navigating between contrasting trends. In Curaj, A., Matei, L., Princopie, R., Salmi, J., and Scott, P. (eds), The European Higher Education Area. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-31920877-0_2 Hare, H. (2007). Survey of ICT and education in Africa: Ethiopia Country Report. Helms, R.M., Rumbley, L.E., Brajkovic, L., and Mihut, G. (2015). Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs. CIGT Insights. American Council on Education. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12513.51044 Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency (2011). Guidelines for the Accreditation of Cross Border Higher Education in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Imperial Ethiopian Ministry of Information (1967). Selected Speeches of His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I 1918–1967. Addis Ababa: author. Institute of International Education (IIE) (2011). Building Sustainable U.S.–Ethiopian University Partnerships: Findings from a Higher Education Conference. New York: IIE . Institute of International Education (IIE) (2015). Open Doors: 2015 Report on International Educational Exchange. New York: IIE . International Association of Universities (IAU) (2014). Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing Expectations, Fundamental Values. IAU 4th Global Survey. Kebede, M. (2006). The Roots and Fallouts of Haile Selassie’s Educational Policy. UNESCO Forum Occasional Paper Series Paper no. 10. Paris: UNESCO. Kehoe, M. (1962). Higher Education in Ethiopia: A Report on Haile Selassie I University. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1962.11773504 Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense publishers. Knight, J. (2012). Student mobility and internationalization: Trends and tribulations. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1): 20–33. doi:10.2304/rcie.2012.7.1.20 Leask, B. (2015). Internationalization of the Curriculum. London: Routledge. Leyew, Z. (2012). The Ethiopian language policy: A historical and typological overview. Ethiopian Journal of Languages and Literature, 12(2): 1–59. Maaza, B. (1966). A study of modern education in Ethiopia: Its foundations, its development, its future, with emphasis on primary education. PhD thesis, Columbia University. Melese, S., and Tadege, A. (2019). The Ethiopian curriculum development and implementation vis-à-vis Schwab’s signs of crisis in the field of curriculum. Cogent Education, 6(1). https:// doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1633147 Ministry of Education (MoE) (2002). Higher Education Capacity Building Program. Addis Ababa: Ethiopia. Ministry of Education (MoE) (2015). Education Sector Development Program V (2015/16– 2019/20). Addis Ababa: Ethiopia. Ministry of Education (MoE) (2016). Education Statistics Annual Abstract 2015/16. Addis Ababa: MoE. Ministry of Education (MoE) (2018a). Education Statistics Annual Abstract 2017/18. Addis Ababa: MoE.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA

491

Ministry of Education (MoE) (2018b). The Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap. Addis Ababa: MoE. OECD (2008). Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, vol. 2. Paris: OECD . Oyewole, O. (2009). Internationalization and its implications for the quality of higher education in Africa. Higher Education Policy, 22(3): 319–329. Pankhurst, R. (n.d.). History of Education, Printing and Literacy in Ethiopia: Ethiopian Students Abroad in the 1920s. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rumbley, L.E., and de Wit, H. (2017). International faculty mobility: Crucial and understudied. International Higher Education, 88: 6–8. Semela, T. and Ayalew, E. (2008). Ethiopia. In Tefera, D., and Knight, J. (eds), Higher Education in Africa: The International Dimension. Chestnut Hill: Center for International Higher Education, Boston College and Association of African Universities, pp. 159–207. Soliman, S., Anchor, J., and Taylor, D. (2019). The international strategies of universities: deliberate or emergent? Studies in Higher Education, 44(8): 1413–1424. Stoddart, J. (1986). The Use and Study of English in Ethiopian Schools. Report for the Ministry of Education, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Tamrat, W. (2019). Unlocking the potential of ICT in higher education. University World News, February 13, 2019. Tamrat, W., and Dermas, S. (2019). The quest for refugee higher education in Ethiopia: The case of self-financing Eritreans widening participation and lifelong learning. Widening Participation & Lifelong Learning, 21(2): 120–140. Tamrat, W., and Teferra, D. (2018). Internationalization of Ethiopian higher education institutions: Manifestations of a nascent system. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(5): 434–453. Tekeste, N. (2006). Education in Ethiopia: From Crisis to the Brink of Collapse The Nordic Africa Institute. Transitional Government of Ethiopia (1994). Education and Training Policy. Addis Ababa: Transitional Government of Ethiopia. Trines, S. (2018). Education in Ethiopia. World Education News and Reviews (WENR), November 15, 2018. Tsemiru, M. (1984). The development of higher education in Ethiopia with specific reference to management and planning. PhD thesis Humobldt Universitat zu Berlin. UIS (2017). Global flow of tertiary level students. http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2018). UNDP Annual Report 2018. New York: UNDP. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1988). Ethiopia: Higher Education Development of University Education. Paris: UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2019). Global Education Monitoring Report 2019, Migration, Displacement and Education: Building Bridges, not Walls, Paris: UNESCO. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2018). The Other One Per Cent—Refugee Students in Higher Education. DAFI Annual Report 2017. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/publications/education/5bc4affc4/other-percent-refugee-studentshigher-education-dafi-annual-report-2017.html (accessed May 3, 2019). University World News (2008). EU-AFRICA: African participation in Erasmus Mundus 7, University World News, December 2008. Available at: https://www.universityworldnews. com/post.php?story=20081207102641687

492

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Wagaw, T. (1990). The Development of Higher Education and Social Change: An Ethiopian Experience. Michigan: Michigan State University Press. Work, E. (1934). A plan for Ethiopia’s educational system. The Journal of Negro Education, 3(1): 66–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2292142 World Bank (2003). Higher Education Development for Ethiopia: Pursuing the Vision. A World Sector Study. Washington, DC : World Bank. World Bank (2016). Ethiopia Digital Foundations Project (P171034). Washington, DC : World Bank. World Bank (2017). Improving the Performance of Ethiopian Universities in Science and Technology: A Policy Note. Washington, DC : World Bank. Yigezu, M. (2013). PhD training programs in Ethiopia: Challenges and prospects. In Negash, T., and Daniel, A. (eds), PhD Training in Eastern and Southern Africa: The Experience of OSSREA . Addis Ababa: OSSREA , pp. 83–108. Yizengaw, T. (2005). Policy Development in Higher Education in Ethiopia and the Role of Donors and Development Partners. Paper presented at the International Expert Meeting: “Formulas that Work: Making Higher Education Support More Effective,” The Hague, The Netherlands, May 23–24, 2005. Yohannes, T. (2002). Factors that promoted or limited the development of education in Ethiopia: A historical perspective. PhD dissertation submitted to Alliant International University, San Diego. Zewde, B. (2002). Pioneers of Change in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press.

CHAPTER THIRTY

Two Decades of Internationalizing Higher Education in South Africa CHIKA T. SEHOOLE AND RAKGADI PHATLANE

INTRODUCTION South Africa (SA) is geographically situated at the southernmost tip of Africa and has a population of 57.7 million at the time of writing. The country went through different periods of colonization that started with the advent of the Dutch colonialists in 1652 followed by the arrival of the English in 1806. From 1948, under the National Party government, South Africa was ruled through an apartheid system whereby the South African population was divided into four races (namely White, Colored, Indian, and African). Although segregation in education was practiced before 1948, the apartheid policy formalized, institutionalized, and promoted it and produced legislation specifically to promote it. Since then, all the other machinery of the state was channeled towards separate development. Immediately upon obtaining power, the apartheid government moved swiftly to institutionalize racial segregation. The racial classification also determined the quality of life and services different racial groups would enjoy with White people at the highest of the hierarchy and Africans at the lowest. Africans were further divided into various ethnic groups as part of the apartheid “divide and rule” strategy. With the dawn of democracy in 1994, the new government’s priority was to redress the architecture of the apartheid system, with its inherent racial and ethnic divisions and inequalities, to establish a new non-racial and democratic government underpinned by the Bill of Rights that gave all South Africans equal human rights. After many years of isolation from the international community because of a boycott of the apartheid system, South Africa was re-admitted to the global community of nations. The political and economic reforms that took place in the 1990s were accompanied by reforms in the education sector in general and higher education in particular. These reforms were aimed at redressing the inherited inequalities that made the South Africa of 1994 one of the most unequal societies in the world. The need to redress the inequities in education was expressed by the National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI, 1993), and further articulated in the ANC’s (1994) Discussion Document, A Policy Framework for Education and Training, which identified three features of the education and training system under apartheid: 493

494

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

1. The system was fragmented along racial and ethnic lines, and had been saturated by the idea of separate and unequal as apartheid required. 2. There was no access, segregated access to education and training at all the available levels of education with large disparities along race and gender lines. 3. There was a no democracy and strategy of controlling the inequality within the education and training system. These issues became the preoccupation of the new government when it took over in 1994, with a view to redress them. The aim of this chapter is to discuss and analyze the changes that took place in South Africa and influenced the South African higher education system to transform from being one of the most closed systems to be the preferred destination for international students and scholars. In developing this argument, the following issues were explored: (1) brief history of higher education in South Africa, (2) evolving internationalization policy of higher education in South Africa, (3) schemes of collaboration between South African universities and international universities, (4) academic staff mobility into South Africa, (5) academic student mobility into South Africa. The chapter does acknowledge that internationalization goes beyond academic mobility and international collaboration to include issues such as the curriculum and rankings; but chose to focus on the above.

BRIEF HISTORY OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA At the end of apartheid in 1994, South Africa inherited a dual system of higher education made up of fifteen Technikons (polytechnics) and twenty-one universities whose character and composition mirrored the grand apartheid design. There were institutions that historically served White people, those that served Indians, Coloreds, and Africans. It was not a surprise that the new post-apartheid government of Nelson Mandela appointed a National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE), eight months after it came into office, to conduct an investigation to advise it on how to transform higher education into a non-racial, democratic, and equitable system (RSA, 1995). The outcome of the NCHE process was the production of a framework of transformation report (NCHE, 1996), which laid the basis for the new government to develop policy and legislation. This took the form of production of a Green Paper (draft policy document) (DOE, 1996), which was followed by the formal adoption of a higher education policy through the White Paper (DOE 1997a), and the development of formal governance structures for transformation through the adoption of the Higher Education Act (DOE, 1997b). In 2002 the government adopted a policy on mergers in higher education, which saw the amalgamation of higher education institutions across racial lines. This resulted in the creation of twenty-one universities made up of eleven traditional universities, six comprehensive universities, and six universities of technology; and two national institutes (Asmal, 2002). The institutions have since been transformed into universities. In the words of the Minister of Education at the time, “mergers were aimed at dealing with the geopolitical imagination of apartheid higher education in South Africa” (Asmal, 2002). The outcomes of the mergers dealt with the racialized architecture of higher education. The admission and allocation of resources to these institutions were no longer based on race and ethnicity.

INTERNATIONALIZING HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

495

Post-apartheid higher education has benefited from some of the strengths that were in some universities under apartheid. For example, historically white universities were well resourced to build expertise in research and high-tech fields that were useful and needed for economic development of apartheid. This inheritance made these institutions become competitive in the current globally competitive and technologically connected environment. For instance, six South African universities—the University of Cape Town, University of Stellenbosch, University of the Witwatersrand, University of Pretoria, University of KwaZulu-Natal, and University of Johannesburg—appear in major world university ranking systems such as the Times Higher Education, QS Rankings, Association of World University Rankings (ARWU), and BRICS Rankings. These universities intentionally pursue rankings as part of their internationalization strategies with a view to enhancing their international standing and reputation. For example, the indicators for these rankings include the number of international staff and students, and the number of citations of published work together with the number of collaborations, which all point to internationalization policies and practices (ARWU, 2008/2009). The next section discusses the evolution of internationalization of higher education in South Africa from the early years to the current situation.

EVOLVING INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY ON HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICAN In his analysis of the internationalization on higher education in South Africa, Sehoole (2006) argues that internationalization or international education is not a new phenomenon in South African higher education and that it can be to the advantage of higher education in South Africa. He argues, therefore, that in all fairness any discussions on internationalization of higher education in South Africa should include its role in supporting segregation that was practiced in the broader society. If that discussion does not include that role, then it would be a superficial discussion and would not claim to do justice to the “complex, divided and conflict-ridden nature of the South African society.” In the same paper, Sehoole (2006) further argues that the colonial history of South Africa, which was influenced by the English and the Dutch during their scramble for Africa in the early years, found expression in the higher education in South Africa. This unfortunate history shaped the origins and development of higher education in South Africa. Higher education institutions in South Africa resembled the European higher institutions. The purpose of these institutions was also to satisfy the needs of the Europeans who were in South Africa at the time. These dimensions were thus transnational and international and featured in the origins and growth of higher education in South Africa. In elaborating on the claims above, Sehoole (2006) further shows how the foundations of university education in South Africa were laid in the second and third quarters of the nineteenth century in the Cape Colony with the emergence of secondary as well as postsecondary education. The first of these institutions was the South African College, which opened in Cape Town in 1829. In 1837, it was incorporated as a public institution and students were prepared for the matriculation and higher education examinations of the University of London. Colleges that followed were Diocesan College, Rondebosch (1848), St Andrews College, Grahamstown (1855), Victoria College, Stellenbosch (1866), which prepared their students for admission to European universities (Behr, 1988). Thus, the early higher education institutions had elements of international education in terms of

496

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

models and cross-border provision of students who were prepared for European institutions. Built into the architecture of higher education in those early years was the exclusion of Black students from access to higher education. Because of lack of access to higher education, Blacks were forced to acquire higher education from higher education institutions in other countries. For instance, John Tengo Jabavu (1859–1921) was one of the first African matriculants in 1883 who could not further his education because the system did not make provision for Black South Africans. This resulted in many of Black students seeking higher education opportunities overseas (Jabavu, 1922). It is therefore correct to argue that, by the turn of the century, South African education not only had elements of internationalization in terms of inward mobility of international students from Europe, but also in terms of outward mobility of Black students in search of study opportunities overseas. These practices of segregation in higher education which led to Black students seeking higher education out of the country continued throughout the nineteenth century and only changed when Black students had their own universities, built specifically for them. Fort Hare University, which produced many leaders for Southern Africa, was created in 1916, followed by the University Colleges of the North (for the Sotho Venda, and Tsonga speaking people) the University College of Zululand (for the Zulu speaking people) in 1959. According to Behr (1988), the idea of separate universities for racial groups had its precedents in the history of education internationally. In the United States, institutions of higher education for Blacks were created in the second half of the nineteenth century, with the establishment of Wilberforce University in 1856, Atlanta University in 1865, and Lincoln University in 1866. After 1890, however, the Second Morrill Act of 1890 outlawed racial segregation in the admission of students (Elliot and Chambers, 1942). During the apartheid era, South Africans became part of the international education developments described above, especially with regard to the outward and inward mobility of students and staff. Outward-bound mobility took two forms: 1. There was support for students and staff by national and foreign agencies (government and non-government) who offered scholarships to students and staff to study abroad. 2. There was migration of students and staff because they were fleeing the repression of the apartheid system. Many of those fleeing away from the atrocities of apartheid joined the liberation movement in exile, which offered some study opportunities around the world. Many politicians in the post-apartheid governments obtained their professional training and academic qualifications in different parts of the world including the former Soviet Union, the UK, the United States, Canada, and some African countries. Apart from a record of South Africans that were forced into exile during apartheid, there is little record of outbound mobility of South Africans studying abroad. Even though the integration of South Africa into the international/global community was a priority of the new government, there was no concomitant development of internationalization of higher education policies to this effect. Policy documents produced in the first five years of democracy never explicitly detailed any specific vision, or specific principles, goals, or strategies for the internationalization of higher education. The first clear pointer to internationalization of higher education was articulated in the report of

INTERNATIONALIZING HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

497

the Council on Higher Education (CHE) Task Team on Shape and Size in 2000, which identified internationalization of higher education as a key feature facing the system. The Task Team stated that the country was not putting a lot of effort into the promotion of higher education in South Africa internationally. There was a notable possibility of attracting more students from the SADC, other parts of the African continent, and from all over the world. This could still be done alongside increasing and enhancing access to South African students (CHE, 2004). This idea was pursued emphatically. It was then reflected in the National Plan for higher Education (DoE, 2001), which envisaged as one of its strategic objectives “to produce graduates with the skills and competencies to meet the human resources needs of the country.” From 2002, the funding policies and subsidy in South Africa treated SADC students as home students in terms of fees (DoE, 2001). These measures were also giving effect to the SADC 1 protocol on Education and Training, which South Africa is participating in,2 that was developed in 1997 and ratified in 2000. This protocol dictated that students studying in the SADC member states should be treated as home students in terms of fees, and member states were expected to reserve 7 percent of their higher education enrollments to SADC students (SADC Protocol, 1997). The Plan also proposed internationalization to be used as a tool to achieve transformation of higher education by encouraging higher education institutions to actively recruit academics from the rest of Africa. This strategy was aimed at assisting to address staff equity and transformed institutional cultures, which were at the time experienced as alienating and not welcoming to the majority of black students and staff in higher education. It was believed that this would contribute to the broader development of intellectual and research networks across the continent, thus contributing to the social and economic development of Africa as a whole (CHE, 2004).

INTERNATIONALIZATION THROUGH SCHEMES OF COLLABORATION Under apartheid, international cooperation as an aspect of South African higher education, was greatly restricted. This was due to the sanctions imposed against the apartheid state and the attendant marginalization of its higher education institutions (HEIs). Following the Second World War, international higher education became a feature of higher education systems in many other parts of the world. De Wit (2002) maintains, that during the cold war period, internationalization was used by the superpowers (the Soviet Union and the United States) as a political instrument to promote international education exchange and cooperation: to gain a better understanding of the rest of the world and to maintain and even expand their spheres of influence. Together with diplomacy, development aid, and cultural exchange, international exchange and cooperation in higher education became important to reach these objectives. The patterns of international cooperation and collaboration reveal two general trends: the historical ties South Africa had with countries of the North, mainly Europe and the

This comprises Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 2 The protocol has been signed by all fourteen SADC member state countries. 1

498

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

United States, and the changes that took place after 1994, with Africa being the focus of international trade. These schemes of cooperation also follow the patterns of trade relations South Africa has with the rest of the world. For example, Europe is the largest source of investment for South Africa and accounts for almost half of South Africa’s foreign trade. According to the South African Yearbook (2002/3: 158–159), seven of South Africa’s top ten trading partners are European countries. The UK, with its historic link to South Africa, is South Africa’s third-largest trading partner and the largest foreign investor in South Africa. Closer to the UK is the Netherlands, which has South Africa as its main trading partner in Africa. These developments also mirror the patterns of inflow of international staff to South Africa and the schemes of collaboration of universities they entered into with foreign institutions. Sehoole (2008) shows how in 2005 the University of Pretoria (UP), had 72 signed institutional agreements, which shows that these have been entered into mainly with European Institutions. The major regions with which agreements were signed were Europe (26), Africa and SADC Region (18), The Americas (including the United States, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean) (17), Scandinavia (5), Asia and the Far East (6). In 2019 there is not much that has changed as UP shows the following patterns of collaboration: It has 184 collaboration agreements with European institutions, 66 with North American, 41 with African, 38 with Asian, 34 with Middle Eastern, 12 with South American, and 10 with Oceania (DHET, 2019). Similar patterns could be observed at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) where a study was conducted in 2004. This study found that the majority of staff members collaborated with colleagues in Europe (52 percent) followed by South African universities (44 percent), North American universities (42 percent), and within the 29th percentile with the universities in the SADC region (Cross et al., 2004). Chasi (2019) conducted another study at the same university and showed a map of countries that collaborated with Wits in 2017, based on the number of ISI indexed research publications. That study shows that Wits academics collaborated and co-authored articles with 723 academics in the United States, 503 in England, 305 in Australia, and 276 in Germany. Quoting from the university’s website, Chasi (2019) highlighted that Wits had high-impact institutional collaborations with several “Times Higher Education” ranked universities, which assisted it to yield significant citations: University of Cape Town, University of Oxford, University College of London, Harvard University, and the University of Washington. She showed how North–South partnerships between Africa and European countries or the United States, for example, had increased in the first decades of the twenty-first century. The findings of her study demonstrate that most of the academic collaborations with which the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) had partnerships were from the global North.

INTERNATIONALIZATION THROUGH ACADEMIC STAFF MOBILITY AND EMPLOYMENT IN SOUTH AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES In their article, Sehoole, Adeyemo, Phatlane, and Ojo (2019) argue that at the turn of this century, South Africa positioned itself to strengthen its science and technology expertise and capacity in order to become a preferred destination for technology transfer. Part of the strategy to achieve this would be to tap into a foreign skills base as well as building strategic cooperation and collaboration through a range of international and regional fora

INTERNATIONALIZING HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

499

(SADC, 1997). In order to facilitate this mobility, South Africa passed the Immigration Amendment Act, 2004 (Act 19 of 2004), which was aimed at attracting scarce skills required by the economy in accordance with vision 2014 of eradicating poverty and underdevelopment (RSA, 2004). In order to boost economic growth and to have a constant supply of skilled labor, the policy advocated the need for employment of foreign labor, and proposed: to facilitate foreign investment, enabling the entry of exceptionally skilled or qualified people; to increase the number of skilled resources; and to facilitate academic exchange programs (Government Communication and Information System; GCIS, 2004/5). In practice, foreign skills or workers should only be employed or recruited if evidence can be supplied that there are no qualified nationals to do the job. The paper by Sehoole et al. (2019) further shows that South Africa drew international academic staff from all the regions of the world with the majority drawn from the African continent, followed by Europe. Table 30.1 shows headcount of permanent instruction and research staff in South African public universities by regions for selected year (2000, 2005, and 2010): (Asia, Australia and Oceania, Europe, North America, South America, SADC, South Africa, and the rest of Africa) Table 30.2 shows the presence of international staff in South African universities, which was dominated by European and African academic staff. The dominance of Africa and Europe should be understood in the light of the historical ties South Africa has with the African continent and Europe. This pattern is aligned to that of the study conducted by the Education Policy Unit (EPU, 1999), which shows the dominance of European institutions in the collaborations South African universities entered into with foreign institutions. The number of staff, unlike that of students, generally shows an upward

TABLE 30.1 Origins of international staff in South African universities in 2000, 2005, 2010 Region

2000 2005 2010

Asia

Australia and Oceania

Europe

North America

South America

SADC

Rest of Africa

No Total info

95 33 87

19 12 19

409 229 369

81 47 75

18 6 11

96 196 482

148 168 319

667 1533 433 1124 128 1490

Source: Sehoole et al., 2019. Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

TABLE 30.2 Permanent academic staff in South African universities Permanent academic staff

2000

2004

2014

2017

No info

Other Africa Other foreign SADC excluding SA Other foreign Total

148 168 96 168 412

142 478 182 478 802

496 1127 820 1127 2443

560 839 861 839 2260

667

Source: Data Higher Education Management Information System supplied by the DHET, 2019.

500

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

trajectory. For academics, South Africa seems to consistently attract staff members from other countries.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT MOBILITY TO SOUTH AFRICA The enrollments of students in higher education institutions in South Africa show a representation of international students from these regions. Table 30.3 is a representation of the international students from either the UK or the United States, combined with other students from Asia, who were enrolled in South African universities in the mentioned years. Looking at Table 30.3, it shows that the number of international students from outside the African continent was 7,836, which indicates the interest these students had in South African higher education. The numbers, however, started declining as the 2014 and 2017 figures show. The large number of enrollments after 1994 from continents outside Africa seems to have reduced per the researched cycle, and the causes of this need to be investigated. Figure 30.1 attests to the same fact.

TABLE 30.3 Total enrollments of international students from continents other than Africa Year

2004

2014

2017

No. of students

7,836

6,648

6,070

Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

FIGURE 30.1: Students enrolled in South African universities from the rest of the world. Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET (2019).

INTERNATIONALIZING HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

501

Africa forms the focus of South Africa’s global economic strategy, within which government pursues a strong developmental agenda. It is also an important market for South African exports, with approximately 30 percent in 1999 destined for the continent. North America and South America are some of the key trading partners of South Africa (SA Yearbook: 2002/03). Thus, despite a lack of formal policy on internationalization of higher education until 2017, there is a relationship that can be deduced between patterns of internationalization of higher education in terms of schemes of institutional cooperation as well as academic collaboration, and the trade and industrial policy and strategy of the country. This is also evident in the patterns of inbound student mobility, as will be shown later in the chapter. Lee and Sehoole’s (2015) study revealed why South Africa was an attractive global destination, albeit for a much smaller proportion of the world’s students outside the continent. The non-African students, mostly from the United States and Western Europe, were drawn to the location to be non-degree seekers or opted to study in the country after obtaining their undergraduate degrees elsewhere. Unlike Africans, who tended to view studying in the country as a means towards job competitiveness or seeking a quality education not available at home, the non-Africans in their study were more interested in the African culture, and in several cases were there as a result of familial circumstances with family members already in the area. South Africa is among the emerging economies playing an increasing role as providers of higher education within the region, continent, and globally. The country’s popularity as a leading destination of choice for Southern Africans, and for other African students, makes South Africa a regional and continental hub in higher education. Table 30.4 and Figure 30.2 show the number of students from Africa who are not from the SADC region. Table 30.4 and Figure 30.2 show that the enrollments of students from the African states that are not part of the SADC region were at 6,873 in 2004, and leaped to 11,944 in 2014. In 2017, the numbers were at 11,697. As already mentioned, it would be necessary to see the numbers after 2024 (at the end of the third decade of democracy), before being able to make a statement about whether the numbers are fluctuating, increasing, or decreasing. What will then be more interesting would be to find out the reasons for the increase, fluctuation, or even decrease. It is, however, a known fact that during 2008, 2013, and 2015, South Africa experienced waves of xenophobic violence, which saw foreign nationals and their businesses coming under attack. With pictures of these being broadcast on global television and media houses, they could have influenced the choice of South Africa as a preferred destination. Figure 30.2 compares the numbers of international students in those three years. The increase in the period of ten years, though, is notably remarkable. The protocol and the deliberate policy intervention seem to have picked up. The role of South Africa in contributing to human capital development in the region can be explained by its relative strengths compared with those of other countries in the African

TABLE 30.4 Number of students from Africa, who are not from the SADC region Years

2004

2014

2017

Numbers

6,873

11,944

11,697

Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

502

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 30.2: Enrollment of students from other African countries but not the SADC. Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET (2019).

continent and the global South. According to the South African Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET, 2019), although SADC students constituted just 5.5 percent of South Africa’s higher education enrollment, they however constituted 74.3 percent of the country’s international students. The top four highest senders (Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Namibia, and Botswana) share direct borders with South Africa. Table 30.5 and Figure 30.3 show enrollment of SADC students (excluding South African students) in the universities in South Africa. Table 30.5 represents the total number of students who were enrolled at South African universities in the years shown. The data in 2004 was from only twenty-three universities; in 2014, from 24 universities; and in 2017, the data includes the new universities of Mpumalanga and Sol Plaatjie. Figure 30.3 shows the number of students who enrolled in South African universities in the mentioned years. In 2004, there were twenty-three universities, which enrolled

TABLE 30.5 Enrollments in South African universities from the SADC region, excluding South Africa Year

Enrollment numbers

2004 2014 2017

36,394 51,140 50,658

Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

INTERNATIONALIZING HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

503

FIGURE 30.3: Students from the SADC region excluding South Africa. Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

SADC students. The number varied per university, with the University of South Africa (UNISA) enrolling more students from the SADC region than all the universities in the country. The reason for this might be that UNISA has always been able to give tuition in distance education mode, and recently in open distance learning, where the use of technology was enhanced to improve support to students at a distance, with the aim to reduce the distance. From just over 36,000 students in 2004, the number increased to more than 51,000 in the period of ten years. The numbers slightly reduced to 50,618 students in 2017 and whilst the reasons for the decline have not been formally researched, they could be related to xenophobic attacks experienced in 2015. In their analysis of the survey of international students they conducted across seven South African universities, Lee and Sehoole (2015) showed that regional cooperation efforts, which included governmental policies and financial incentives, were key pull factors for SADC students to come and study in South Africa. For most SADC and other African students, South Africa offered quality higher education that surpassed what was available or accessible in their home countries. There was a strong consensus among the African participants that the acquisition of international qualifications in their areas of specialization would enhance their job mobility. Because of the quality of education they expected to receive in South Africa, the African respondents anticipated being able to secure better employment opportunities in South Africa and elsewhere upon their educational completion than if they remained at home. An international education in South Africa was perceived as an opportunity to enhance African students’ job competitiveness. For some Africans, regional or continental mobility was a stepping stone towards global mobility. The survey results by Lee and Sehoole (2015) show that students also had short-term economic rationales in their choice to study in South Africa. On one hand, African students mentioned affordability in terms of tuition fees and cost of living as compared with other countries in the world. For SADC students in particular, the regional agreement made

504

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

tuition comparable to studying at home, thus making tuition fees more affordable for them than elsewhere. A student from Zimbabwe explained, “It was the cheapest education of high standard my parents could afford.” For non-African students, the cost of tuition and living was relatively low, particularly in light of South Africa’s depreciating currency. The popularity and reputation of South Africa’s higher education in the post-1994 period was demonstrated by the fact that in 2014, twenty years after the dawn of democracy, South African higher education rose from obscurity to become the 14th ranked preferred destination for international students. It also became the only African country featured in the OECD higher education report (Lee and Sehoole, 2015). There are also students who were reportedly in South African universities, coming from other countries, but they did not mention which countries they were from originally. Table 30.6 and Figure 30.4 show those numbers. Table 30.7 shows a comparative analysis of the numbers of international students versus South African students in the HEIs of South Africa in the mentioned years.

TABLE 30.6 Foreign students in South African universities who did not mention their countries of origin Year

Number of students

2004 2014 2017

1,747 1,016 1,245

Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

FIGURE 30.4: Foreign students who did not specify their country of origin. Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

INTERNATIONALIZING HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

505

TABLE 30.7 Comparative analysis of the numbers of international students and South African students Year

South African students

International students

2004 2014 2017

691,898 896,155 968,948

52,850 70,748 69,670

Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

FIGURE 30.5: Comparative analysis of international students versus South African students. Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

Figure 30.5 added a total number of all international students together, those from the SADC, the African Continent, and from all over the world. That number is then compared with the South African student enrollment numbers during the different periods. The comparisons include: 1. Number of students from other countries of the world 2. Number of students from the African continent excluding the SADC 3. Number of students from the SADC 4. Number of students from SA 5. Number of students who did not disclose their country of origin. It is interesting to note that the numbers of international students in 2014 were more than the ones in 2017. If one compares numbers from the SADC and the rest of the world, one can comfortably conclude that the deliberate intervention of government policy to transform the higher education system was a success to a certain extent. The SADC

506

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 30.6: Comparative analysis of the origin of students in South African universities by numbers. Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

FIGURE 30.7: Comparative analysis of the percentages of students’ origins in South African universities. Source: Data from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) supplied by the DHET, 2019.

INTERNATIONALIZING HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

507

Protocol (1997), which was signed amongst the member states, could be the factor, which encouraged enrollment of the SADC students to study in SA. Figure 30.7 highlights the analyses of the origins of students who are in the South African universities using percentages. In 2004, a large percentage of the international students originated from the SADC, followed by the other African states and then the rest of the world. This shows testimony that the Internationalization Policy and the SADC Protocol (1997) together with the deliberate treaties signed amongst the countries with regard to collaborations did indeed have an impact on international student mobility.

CONCLUSION This chapter has provided an analysis of the history of internationalization of higher education in South Africa, showing that internationalization is as old as the emergence of higher education in South Africa. In its early stages, education was aimed at serving the children of colonialists who were prepared to pursue further education in Europe. The chapter has further shown how the higher education excluded Black students who were then forced to study overseas. The segregationist policies of higher education were entrenched during apartheid, which saw cultural and academic boycotts of higher education. With the dawn of democracy in the early 1990s, South Africa in general, and higher education in particular, became one of the emergent and preferred choices for international students. Exposure of the quality of higher education that South Africa had to offer contributed to the increase of international students from different regions and continents. As a result, South African higher education went from a position of being isolated from the rest of the world to one that became a preferred destination for study purposes to many from 1994. However, although in the first decade of democracy there was an increased number of students and staff coming into South African higher education, the recent statistics show that these numbers are on the decline. This trend needs further investigation to understand this decline. The chapter has also analyzed institutional collaborations in two top universities in South Africa, which are used as part of the internationalization strategy in South Africa. Data shows a bias towards collaboration with institutions in the global North rather than in the South. Part of this phenomenon is linked to pursuit of rankings as evidence of collaboration with reputable institutions, especially in the North, which contributes to enhancement of reputation and ranking. An analysis of rankings and internationalization of the curriculum (which goes beyond the scope of this chapter) would show how South African higher education institutions have made much progress in their internationalization strategies and practices, which makes them attractive to international students and institutions seeking some collaborations.

REFERENCES African National Congress (ANC) (1994). Discussion Document: A Framework for Education and Training. Braamfontein: ANC . Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) (2008/2009). http://www.shanghairanking. com/ARWU-Methodology-2008.html Asmal, K. (2002). Transformation and Restructuring: A New Institutional Landscape for Higher Education Ministry of Education. Pretoria: Ministry of Education. Behr, A.L. (1988). Education in South Africa: Origins, Issues and Trends: 1652–1988. Pretoria: Academica.

508

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Chasi, S. (2019). North–South partnerships in public higher education: A selected South African case study: A thesis submitted to the Wits School of Education, Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Johannesburg, Wits. Community (SADC) (1997). Protocol on Education. Blantyre, Malawi: SADC . Council on Higher Education (CHE) (2004). South Africa Higher Education in the First Decade of Democracy. Pretoria: CHE . Cross, M., Sehoole, T., Mhlanga, E., Byars-Ameguide, P., Inglis, J., & Koen, C. (2004). University experience in the 21st century: Perceptions of global and local exposure at the University of the Witwatersrand (Report). Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual Analysis: Westport, CT, Greenwood Press. Department of Education (DoE) (1996). Green Paper on Higher Education Transformation. Pretoria, South Africa: DoE. Department of Education (DoE) (1997a). Education White Paper 3. A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. Pretoria, South Africa: DoE. Department of Education (DoE) (1997b). Higher Education Amendment Act, No. 55 of 1999. Pretoria, South Africa, DoE. Department of Education (DoE) (2001). National Plan for Higher Education. Pretoria, South Africa: DoE. Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) (2019). Statistics obtained from the higher education management information system database. Pretoria: DHET. Education Policy Unit (1999). The Relationship between Higher Education and Business: A Typology. Bellville: Education Policy Unit, University of the Western Cape. Elliot E.G., and Chambers, M.M. (1942). Charters and Basic Laws of Selected American Universities and Colleges. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching. Jabavu, D.D. (1922). John Tengo Jabavu, editor of Imvo Zabantsudu, 1884–1921. Lovedale, RSA : Love Institution Press. Lee, J. and Sehoole, C. (2015). Regional, continental, and global mobility to an emerging economy: The case of South Africa. Higher Education, 70(5): 827–843. National Commission on Higher Education (South Africa) (NCHE). (1996). National Commission on Higher Education Report: A Framework for Transformation. Pretoria: NCHE . National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI) (1993). The Framework Report. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press/NECC . RSA (1995). Terms of Reference of the Commission, Republic of South Africa, Government Gazette, vol. 356, no. 5640. Pretoria, RSA . RSA (2004). Act no. 19 of 2004, Immigration and Amendment Act. Republic of South Africa. Government Gazette, vol. 472, no. 26901. Pretoria, RSA . Sehoole, C. (2006). Internationalisation of higher education in South Africa: A historical review. Perspectives in Education, 24(1): 1–13. Sehoole, M. (2008). South Africa and the dynamics of international student circulation. In De Wit, H., Agarwal, P., Said, M., Sehoole, M., and Sirozi, M. (eds), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Sehoole, C., Adeyemo, K. S., Phatlane, R., and Ojo, E. (2019). Academic mobility and the experiences of foreign staff at South African higher education institutions. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(2): 212–229.

INTERNATIONALIZING HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

509

Southern African Development Community (SADC). (1997). Protocol on Education and Training http://www.unisa.ac.za/contents/projects/docs/SADC%20PROTOCOL%20 ON%20EDUCATION%20%20AND%20TRAINING.pdf South Africa, Government and Communication and Information System (GCIS). South Africa Year Book, 2002/3. Durban: Universal Printers. South Africa, Government and Communication and Information System (GCIS). South Africa Year Book, 2004/5. Durban: Universal Printers.

CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE

Internationalization of Higher Education in Zimbabwe EVELYN C. GARWE, JULIET THONDHLANA, AND SIMON MCGRATH

INTRODUCTION Internationalization has emerged as a key driver of change in higher education systems in the world as evidenced by the numerous literary, verbal, and e-conversations in recent years (Knight, 2008; Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014). Indeed, Olson, Green, and Barbara, (2006) averred that internationalization of higher education (IHE) has gained a central position to the extent that, for some HEIs, it has become a value in itself. IHE reflects, utilizes, and fosters global flows of knowledge, capital, and labor (De Wit and Hunter, 2015). It is also important for national governments to embrace IHE, considering its implications for various policies and initiatives that form part of regional and international integration agendas (Rensburg, David, and Motala, 2015). Whilst there exists a close linkage between globalization and the practices and discourses of IHE (Stromquist, 2007), it is widely acknowledged that internationalization is grounded in national contexts, regulatory frameworks, and traditions of higher education (Marginson and Rhoades, 2002; Kaur, Sirat, and Azman, 2008; Rezaei, Yousefi, Larijani, Dehnavieh, Rezaei, and Adibi, 2018). Thus, IHE impacts higher education institutions (HEIs) and systems differently, depending on their understandings and the extent to which they respond to the attendant opportunities, challenges, risks, and consequences (Jowi, 2012; Caruana, 2010; Cr˘a ciun, 2015; Mertkan, Gilanlioglu, and McGrath, 2016). Notwithstanding these variations, IHE strategically positions HEIs to contribute positively to the attainment of national development goals through partaking in intellectual interactions that strengthen: teaching and learning; research; and community service (Stromquist, 2007). The competent graduates and staff, so produced, possess characteristics of “global citizens,” with an expansive worldview that positions them favorably locally and internationally (Mansilla and Jackson, 2013). IHE is, however, not an end in itself, but a means of enhancing quality and responding to challenges through creating synergies, collaboration, and cooperation at a global level (Qiang, 2003). A harmonization and strategic planning approach to IHE through the creation of policies, optimizes its impact on higher education and enhances the quality of the teaching and learning. A study by Cr˘a ciun (2018) revealed that only nine countries with IHE 510

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

511

policies accounted for a whopping 41 percent global share of international students, thereby deriving substantial benefits concomitant to IHE. Accordingly, institutions, nations, and regions that are in the vanguard of contemporary practice have adopted a focused and systematic approach to their vision, goals, and activities for internationalization by developing IHE policies (Teichler, 2009; Brandenburg and de Wit, 2011). Such policies are critical in that they guide HEIs and higher education systems to leverage the global knowledge economy for national development (Bolsmann and Miller, 2008). The policies, for example, provide guidance regarding inbound and outbound students and staff, international partnerships, internationalized curricula, and the establishment of branch campuses abroad (Altbach, 2015). In addition, evaluation of IHE policy progress identifies the gaps between activities and goals, thereby giving impetus to institutional planning and eventual goal achievement. Given the importance of developing, implementing, and reviewing IHE policies, Cr˘a ciun (2018) bemoans the scarcity of comparative literature on these policies at institutional, national, and regional levels, arguing that only 11 percent of the countries under study (mainly concentrated in the global North, particularly Europe) had IHE policies. In the context of sub-Saharan Africa, this has been attributed to the fact that these policies are non-existent, therefore most HEIs engage with IHE in an ad hoc, unstructured, and unsystematic manner (Jowi and Huisman, 2009). Without national IHE policies to guide them, some African countries have partnered stewardship external organizations in designing IHE strategies and initiatives, thus running the risk of having agendas that are at cross purposes with national imperatives. In countries where IHE policies exist, for example South Africa, there are no public documents detailing how these were developed by way of guiding others who wish to develop their own policies. The main contribution of such policy development process details would be to increase transparency, reveal areas of best practice, and open avenues for cooperation and building intra-country synergies. Notwithstanding the importance of using international best practices in developing comprehensive IHE policies, countries with a colonial history, especially in Africa, should take cognizance of the potential tensions between IHE and decolonization. Thus they ought to strategize around their own contextual realities and be able to navigate and manage the consequent coloniality; what Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2015) calls the enduring patterns of power resulting from colonialism. Thondhlana, Abdulrahman, Garwe, and McGrath (2020) highlight the critical need to challenge “Euro-American internationalization templates” when strategizing around IHE in the context of post-colonies. As Razak (2012) underscores, the options that are available for African HEIs are to either decolonize or remain an exclusive source/market of “brain power” for Western destinations. This position is supported by Zeleza (2012), who advocates for strengthening intra-African regionalization as well as South–South cooperation. Cognizant of the need for a harmonized, all-encompassing approach to IHE, as well as informing practice this chapter describes how Zimbabwe embarked on an extensive exercise to create a harmonized framework for IHE as part of a broader exercise to transform and reconfigure higher education to drive innovation and spur sustainable development of the country. The chapter focuses mostly on the IHE policy development process/trajectory. Whilst studies of this nature tend to be largely descriptive (Cr˘a ciun, 2018), this chapter will also include empirical evidence from a country case study of Zimbabwe. This makes it possible to highlight and interrogate country-specific peculiarities and to lay the ground for the establishment of common patterns and trends necessary for

512

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

the comparative approach that forms the essence of this handbook of internationalization in the global South. Given the colonial history of Zimbabwe, the chapter will also dwell on how HEIs perceive and engage with issues of coloniality and how these issues were embedded into the IHE policy. This is critical in that, as indicated above, whilst IHE policies may be based on good intentions, omitting issues such as colonialism and coloniality can reproduce inequalities. As Matic´ (2019) advises, consideration and incorporation of such issues into policy moderates the potential negative impact. The chapter first provides an overview of higher education in Zimbabwe and then moves on to give the historical perspective of IHE in Zimbabwe. This is followed by an account of the trajectory towards the development of a national policy framework. Finally, a conclusion giving highlights of the key learning points as well as future aspirations and directions regarding IHE in Zimbabwe closes the chapter.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM The Act that established the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education (ZIMCHE, 2006) as the national external quality assurance agency defines higher education as that which is provided by registered public or private degree-awarding institutions and their associate or affiliate institutions. ZIMCHE currently has twenty-four universities in its register of accredited HEIs; fourteen public and ten private. Furthermore, the list of degree-awarding institutions affiliated to these HEIs includes five of the twelve polytechnics, three of the fifteen teachers’ colleges, and approximately 100 public and private colleges (Garwe and Thondhlana, 2019a). Despite Zimbabwe’s record literacy levels, currently at 94 percent, the highest in Africa, the gross higher education enrollment rate stood at 8 percent, compared with, for example, 18 percent for South Africa (ibid.). A study by Butcher, Wilson-Strydom, Hoosen, MacDonald, Moore, and Barnes (2008) found that, in executing the three missions of a university, Zimbabwean HEIs focused mostly on teaching and learning (57 percent), when compared with research (28 percent) and community service (15 percent). The situation is poised to change following the introduction of the University 5.0 concept by the Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development, Honourable Professor Amon Murwira (Tirivangana, 2019). Two pillars (innovation and industrialization/commercialization) were added to the traditional three-pillar university mandate (teaching, research, and university service). This was aimed at positioning higher education to more effectively contribute to the national vision of achieving an upper-middle income status by 2030. Zimbabwe has a strong, well-established education system (UNICEF Zimbabwe, 2011) and an extensive history of IHE that cannot be explained simply by colonialism and its attendant discourses (McGrath, Thondhlana, and Garwe, 2019). For example, graduates from Zimbabwe possess unique skills and work ethics that make them attractive to employers beyond their borders (Tevera and Crush, 2003; Eastwood, Conroy, Naicker, West, Tutt, and Plange-Rhule, 2005; Rogerson and Crush, 2008). From a regional perspective, Zimbabwe’s IHE responded to the country’s changing geopolitical position— from a relatively wealthy and stable attractor of African academics in the 1980s and early 1990s, to an increasing exporter of academics to neighboring countries from the late 1990s to date. There is anecdotal evidence that Zimbabwean highly skilled migrants are doing well within the region, managing for example to occupy management positions in countries such as South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana. Zimbabwean academics are believed to take up to 60 percent of academic staff populations at some regional

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

513

universities. A case in point is that of unconfirmed reports by academic staff at Botho University, a private university with headquarters in Botswana where, in 2013, about 60 percent of its academic staff members in post were reported to be from Zimbabwe. Up until 2007, the national budget allocated to higher education annually stood at 31 percent, the then highest figure in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region (Kotecha and Perold, 2010). The subsidy to higher education from the government coffers stood at 82.4 percent (Butcher et al., 2008), the then highest figure in the region, which averaged 65.3 percent (SARUA, 2010). The fiscal contribution to HEI funding is currently limited mostly to public HEI staff remuneration and a few capital projects (Garwe and Thondhlana, 2019a).

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVE OF IHE IN ZIMBABWE IHE in Zimbabwe has its origins in the colonial era dating back from 1955 following the establishment of the first HEI, the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (UCRN), which was renamed the University of Zimbabwe (UZ) following the country’s independence in 1980 (Shizha and Kariwo, 2011). Although the student body was internationalized, it was skewed towards the white race (Nherera, 2000). Black Zimbabwean students also studied at HEIs abroad in African, Western, and Eastern Bloc countries. UCRN exhibited the British internationalization model wherein curricula and quality of delivery were regulated by the “parent” universities, i.e., the University of London and the University of Birmingham (only for medical programs). Competitive remuneration, conditions of service, and quality education attracted inbound students and staff to the college. Expatriate academic and administrative staff, predominantly from the University of London, replicated the curricula and infused the culture of high quality consistent with the parent institution. Following independence in 1980, graduates from UCRN (many of whom were returning residents) assumed leadership, academic, and professional positions, thus providing critical high-end skills (Gaidzanwa, 2007). The UZ continued to bask in the links and collaborations with European universities, receiving a critical mass of academic and administrative staff. UZ’s reputation for quality education, coupled with the strong and stable economy, attracted staff and students from Africa and beyond. The economic embargo that had been imposed on the colonial government in the 1960s was lifted, thereby opening up numerous opportunities for international support for teaching and learning (e.g., staff development; student and staff exchange programs and scholarships) as well as research. In addition, programs such as the presidential scholarship scheme and the Cuban science teacher education granted students (40,000 to South Africa and 2,000 to Cuba) an opportunity to receive an international education. During the same period a good number of black Zimbabweans with foreign qualifications and exposure joined UZ ushering in international academic practices, thereby raising the institution’s international status. There was a dramatic turn of events during the 1990s, notably the establishment of new universities, initially in a filial relationship to the University of Zimbabwe akin to UCRN’s historical relationship with London. The market-oriented reforms and emerging political polarization resulted in economic decline and a flight of students and staff. Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth and sanctions were imposed on the

514

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

country resulting in isolation of HEIs. By 2009, there remained virtually no foreign staff or students at Zimbabwean public HEIs (Kotecha and Perold, 2010; Machawira, 2010). In 2003, Zimbabwe adopted the “look east policy” towards East-Asian countries, particularly China, in response to the deteriorating economic stability, to ensure enhanced cooperation and to counter economic sanctions imposed by the West (Chingono, 2010; Kamidza, 2017; Portela, 2014). Through the establishment of its Confucius institute in Zimbabwe, China now accounts for a significant share of outward bound Zimbabwean students. Overall, when viewed from a positive and developmental perspective, the diasporic explosion heightened prospects of migration resulting in students demanding internationalized curricula at home (McGrath et al., 2019) among other push factors to make them more competitive on the global labor market. Equally, the deteriorating higher education standards, due to economic hardships and brain drain, led parents to also begin to look outside for their children’s university education.

THE GENESIS AND PROCESS OF IHE POLICY DEVELOPMENT The few studies that focus on IHE in Zimbabwe dwell on challenges in general (Magwa, 2015) and challenges with respect to partnership formation and international research collaborations (Tarusikirwa and Mafa, 2017). In its quest to promote intra- and international cooperation in higher education, the ZIMCHE, with technical assistance from its partner, the University of Nottingham, embarked on an initiative to develop a national framework for IHE to inform and guide the IHE domains of practice. The IHE framework was aimed at articulating policy goals in relation to Zimbabwe’s transformative agenda of an industrialized and modernized nation and the contribution of the higher education sector to that agenda as well as adopting a unified approach to tackle common IHE challenges. Creating a harmonized national IHE policy framework is by no means a walk in the park; success calls for careful mapping out of the process as well as adequately resourcing the project financially, materially, and through selecting a core group made up of artful change leaders (Olson et al., 2006). Paying the correct attention to process is an art, not a science, given the contextual, historical, and cultural challenges as well as internal and external pressures (ibid.). It is thus not advisable to immediately commence the IHE policy development by identifying the goals and desired outcomes before exploring the status quo regarding the underlying issues. The correct starting point would be to ask HEIs questions exploring the understandings, rationale, and strategies regarding internationalization. Issues to do with how internationalization fits and feeds into institutional and national stakeholders, as well as the goals and imperatives of the stakeholders are key. It is also critical to involve all stakeholders so as to understand the environment in which the policy framework will be situated in terms of, for example, the available talents and limitations of the various players, attendant challenges, and possible ways to address them (Eckel, Green, and Hill, 2001). Having established the issues and created a roadmap, change leadership becomes the critical variable for success. Leaders need to drive the process, secure stakeholder buy-in, as well as create a sense of urgency. Regarding the development of an IHE

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

515

policy, issues about its importance and the potential benefits to all stakeholders need to be advanced. Olson et al. (2006) attribute the risk of lack of stakeholder buy-in to inadequate communication and engagement. Leadership to drive the IHE process should be carefully chosen on the basis of strategic positioning, representativeness, experience, and expertise. The development of the IHE policy framework for Zimbabwe was mooted by ZIMCHE, the national external quality assurance agency, and supported by the parent Ministry, following Zimbabwe’s participation in an Africa-wide research project on Organizational Research Cultures in African (ORCA) universities. The leadership taken by these key drivers of quality higher education with the requisite oversight mandate set the process on a right footing in terms of stakeholder buy-in and implementation. The findings of the ORCA study revealed that Zimbabwean HEIs reported phenomenal increases in student numbers but no corresponding increase in research output and innovations. This pointed to an urgent need for Zimbabwean HEIs to internationalize in order to mitigate their challenges regarding limited research outputs among other benefits. Cognizant that in drafting a policy lessons can be drawn from pre-existing policies, ZIMCHE undertook a benchmarking exercise to determine HEIs that had successfully walked the path before and had IHE policy development expertise. The results revealed that the University of Nottingham (with which ZIMCHE already had a subsisting memorandum of understanding) had done exceptionally well in the area of IHE. Accordingly, ZIMCHE invoked the partnership dictates (of the memorandum of understanding) in requesting the University of Nottingham’s hand in backstopping the IHE policy development endeavor. The process of developing the IHE framework for Zimbabwe commenced with the selection of Project leaders by ZIMCHE. The University of Nottingham partner team consisted of one researcher and associate professor who is a Zimbabwean with experience of studying in Zimbabwe as well as researching Zimbabwean higher education, another researcher who is an Irish Professor with vast teaching and research experience in the Zimbabwean and broader African context, and the University of Nottingham office for Global Engagement to assist and provide the necessary expertise. The ZIMCHE team was led by the Deputy CEO who is also a senior academic with local and international study experience as well as vast experience in researching higher education in Zimbabwe. It also included Registrars from all Zimbabwean HEIs who were coopted into the IHE policy development taskforce due to their strategic positioning and expert theoretical and practical knowledge regarding policy development, implementation, monitoring, and review in HEIs. Funding for the project was provided through cost-sharing involving the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development, ZIMCHE, Zimbabwean HEIs, and the University of Nottingham (courtesy of the ESRC Impact Accelerator Account). The process kicked off with a scoping study involving a sample of six HEIs, followed by further data collection and refinement through a series of events as follows: a seminar with ZIMCHE Secretariat; a workshop with Heads of all HEIs; an all-stakeholders workshop involving ZIMCHE and its partner the University of Nottingham, HEIs, the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education Science and Technology Development, and a range of related Ministries including Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, and Tourism, workshops of the taskforce of Registrars appointed to further develop the IHE framework, and finally the dissemination workshop to finalize the framework pending submission to the Minister.

516

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

METHODOLOGY OF SCOPING STUDY The scoping study was conducted by three researchers from ZIMCHE and the University of Nottingham to explore the understandings, rationales, policies, procedures, initiatives, strategies, aspirations, and challenges regarding IHE. The sample frame and interview topic guide were developed through the use of cloud-based document management and face-to-face and online meetings. The sample of six universities was created to reflect differences in institutional age, public–private status, and specialism/comprehensiveness, and a staff sample was devised to reflect different ranks and responsibilities for/awareness of internationalization issues (Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, International Officer, Dean, academic). Ethical approval was obtained as required by the Zimbabwean HEIs and the University of Nottingham. Data collection was done for both primary and secondary data. Primary data was collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews with a total of thirty interviewees in the five categories described above as well as workshop contributions and direct observation. Although sampling was done across universities and levels of staff, the purpose was not to stratify a sample so as to test for differences across institution and level. As with many African HE systems, staff at different levels in Zimbabwe have typically experienced studying and working across a range of institutions and there is a relatively strong sectoral identity that limits the variance of views across institutions. Secondary data included institutional documents (collected during the scoping study of HEIs) and national policy documents; internal (ZIMCHE) documents, for example documentation produced during the process as well as follow-up reports from the seminar and workshops. This comprehensive information from primary and secondary data sources allowed the authors to analyze the self-assessment of the harmonization of IHE projects stating the background, rationale, processes, procedures, outcomes, and learning points.

FINDINGS FROM THE SCOPING STUDY The findings below are organized under identified themes, including understandings, strategies, rationales, challenges, IHE tools, outcomes, and impact.

IHE Understandings, Strategies, Rationales, and Challenges in Zimbabwean HEIs The entire gamut of understandings for Zimbabwean HEI staff, as well as the attendant strategies and rationales, are shown in Table 31.1. Generally, it was evident that all HEIs sampled were involved in some level of internationalization inclusive of student and staff mobility; knowledge sharing and collaboration. Regional harmonization was mentioned as being critical if the country was to be competitive and attract students within Africa. Importantly, the IHE agenda was viewed from a transformational perspective, a move crucial for decolonizing curricula and increasing the chances of IHE success when it is treated as a decolonial project. The national–international global tensions of IHE appeared to be masked due to the complex interactions with the diaspora. There was a general perception that the diaspora was a rich resource that was at the disposal of Zimbabwean HEIs in terms of remittances, collaborations, resource-sharing, and experienced human capital. The temporary and permanent return of some academics and professionals from abroad improved the quality of the teaching and learning experience

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

517

and helped to create awareness in students of the wider prospects available. One academic was quoted as saying: I’m a living example of somebody who has managed to operate and excel in different environments, different cultures, and also infuse this idea that, as Zimbabweans or Africans we are also capable of inventing things and generating knowledge for export it to other countries as well, instead of waiting for something to come, maybe from the Western world (AC1). On closer analysis it was revealed that junior academics considered attracting more international students and increasing international sabbaticals for academic staff to be at

TABLE 31.1 Internationalization of higher education understandings, strategies, and rationales Understanding

Strategies

Rationale

IHE is about having international students

Growing a south–south focus to international student recruitment Opening satellite campuses in other countries Using online provision to attract international students Developing partnerships with African governments and through churches to recruit international cohorts

Primarily financial Some mention of enhancing national students’ learning experience

IHE is about having a diverse group of academic staff

Recruiting and retaining international staff Drawing back home academics from the Zimbabwean diaspora Creating international sensitivity among staff through overseas exposure during contact and sabbatical leave and participation and engagement in international platforms

Academic knowledge exchange is part of being a quality university This supports the overall staff satisfaction and retention Some references to international rankings and benchmarkings

IHE is about having international institutional agreements

Expanding international research collaborations Building new collaborative teaching and learning arrangements Improving information and resource sharing Promoting exchange of students and staff Developing joint degree programs Jointly organizing international conferences and workshops Growing membership to international associations

More varied distribution across responses than from above categories Can help access resources in a constrained environment International visibility should be a goal of all HEIs This supports capacity building of staff Networking can lead to the capture of a range of intangible benefits

518

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

IHE is about broader and less formal processes of international engagement

Extending the opportunities for staff to spend time attached to international universities Increasing staff participation in international conferences and workshops

Same arguments about visibility, capacity building, and networks as in the previous category

IHE is about internationalizing the curriculum

Transforming the curriculum to reflect the latest thinking internationally Seeking international program accreditation Strengthening the role of ZIMCHE to support these processes

Strong concerns about relevance These actions may assist graduate mobility and employability

IHE is about relevant frameworks

Establishing internationalization structures Creating suitable institutional and national policies Advancing regional harmonization of programs

View that internationalization cannot take place without the relevant structures and policies Some reflection of the strong SADC agenda on regional harmonization of programs and qualifications

Source: McGrath, Thondhlana, and Garwe, 2019.

the core of IHE efforts. In addition to these important issues, senior academics and HEI management also dwelt on the potential mutually reinforcing benefits for institutional cultures, HEI finances, staff development, and student satisfaction and employability. The rationales given by HEIs in Zimbabwe fit well into the four principal rationales/ motivations of IHE given in literature, namely economic/financial, academic, cultural/ social, and political (de Wit, 1995; Knight 1997). The major impediment to attracting foreign students stemmed from the unresponsive policies relating to: the high and uncompetitive university entry requirements compared with those of other countries in the region and elsewhere in Africa, financial constraints, immigration restrictions, language problems, shortage of academics with PhDs, dollarization of the Zimbabwean currency, political climate, sanctions, as well as marketing strategy. Among suggested key interventions was the need to capitalize on ZIMCHE’s role of facilitating the internationalization of HEIs in terms of, for example, harmonization of IHE through guidelines/frameworks, supporting the design of IHE policy, and the development of IHE structures. There was also a need to create awareness and research on IHE, and to embark on online provision to mitigate some of the challenges.

IHE TOOLS, OUTCOMES, AND IMPACT Respondents identified a range of desired IHE outcomes inclusive of: increased presence of international students and staff; active memoranda of understanding (research, teaching, and exchanges); increased impact research and publications; increased innovations and

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

519

patents; increased harmonized programs and relevant curricula; and favorable international rankings. The desired outcomes were expected to generate impact, defined as a change, effect, or benefit to the quality of life in terms of socio-economic, cultural, environmental, health, technological, political and legal, and technological pillars, beyond academia. These pillars were seen are anchored by cross-cutting aspects such as new products, policies, and behaviors; improving efficiency and efficacy of existing practices and improving sustainability. Such impact would result in the production of economically engaged graduates who would not only find employment locally and internationally but would also be able to create enterprises for themselves and become employers. This way, HEIs can be seen as transforming themselves into agents of the industrialization and modernization of the Zimbabwean economy for sustainable socio-economic transformation. The increased presence of international students in Zimbabwe was seen as the low hanging fruit not only because of the financial gains but also in their ability to provide the links all over the world to aid Zimbabwe’s international re-engagement drive. As such, the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology prioritized this outcome in their “study in Zimbabwe programme,” which prompted them to capacitate HEIs through facilitation infrastructure-development oriented investment. The realization of these outcomes required HEIs to be capacitated and equipped with the necessary tools, opportunities, and enablers such as a national IHE policy where HEIs would derive their own institutional IHE policies and strategies. It was generally agreed that without a clear IHE policy framework through which to assess the progress of HEIs, the country faced the risk of losing opportunities to achieve its national goals. Further, internationalization structures such as the establishment of international offices would help HEIs achieve the desired outcomes. The need for conferences to share experiences as well as training workshops to support institutions was also highlighted.

ZIMCHE IHE SEMINAR The preliminary results were presented and deliberated on by the ZIMCHE Secretariat and researchers. ZIMCHE is responsible for the development and execution of policies and standards for quality assurance in higher education in Zimbabwe. Its role is to regulate, promote, advise, and coordinate all issues that impact on the quality of higher education in Zimbabwe. Its meso-level positioning in higher education means that it interacts with key stakeholders such as: the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development; HEIs; Employers; Professional Bodies; the President and Cabinet, as well as related stakeholders. Further, ZIMCHE plays a leading role in driving the harmonization of higher education in Southern Africa as its Chief Executive Officer chairs the Southern Africa Quality Assurance Network, the SADC Harmonisation of Higher Education Project, and the Deputy CEO represented Southern Africa in the African Higher Education Quality Assurance Network from 2011–2017. Such positionings enable it to influence IHE policy and create “impact,” both at national and international levels. It is therefore not surprising that many of the participants referenced the role of ZIMCHE as providing some intervention measures to facilitate some of their internationalization initiatives and smoothen barriers. From ZIMCHE’s point of view, the issue of outward-bound student mobility took center stage, requiring policy interventions to protect students that study abroad. Whilst that was seen as a worthy cause, considering that Zimbabwe’s HEIs cannot absorb all the

520

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

students who qualify for entry and that they do not offer some courses preferred by potential students, emerging challenges put these students at risk. To begin with, there were several reports to the effect that many of these foreign-based students faced serious economic challenges thus exposing them to risks of being asked to work for slave-based wages, drug-trafficking, and prostitution. Some parents were short-changed by some foreign institutions or by recruiting agencies that claimed to offer part-scholarships that either never materialized or were eventually made tenable for a limited duration after which stringent and unattainable conditions were set. A case in point involved students in neighboring South Africa as well as those from as far afield as Cyprus and China. Some parents would have estimated that they would be able to secure adequate funds for tuition and living expenses for their children/wards only to lose their jobs or have their earning power eroded due to the relentless economic turmoil in Zimbabwe. There were yet others who obtained their qualifications from unrecognized foreign HEIs who found upon their return that their qualifications were worthless in the Zimbabwean context. The other critical issue requiring policy measures was that of harnessing the diaspora for short-term and long-term staff recruitment and collaboration. The shortage of senior academics to provide academic leadership in HEIs was discussed against the backdrop of sobering reports that senior academics constituted the majority of the 50 percent of Zimbabwean professionals in the diaspora, placing the country in 10th position out of 157 countries experiencing brain drain (Mugwagwa, 2014). This brain drain can easily be turned into brain gain and circulation (Saxenian, 2005) through targeted programs akin to the SARUA-IOM-ZIMCHE Diaspora Temporary Return Project aptly described by Garwe (2011). It was resolved that the next stage of the process of developing an IHE policy framework would be to convene a workshop for Heads of HEIs to partner ZIMCHE in designing the IHE theory of change (TOC) for Zimbabwe. TOC is a recent methodology popular with development agencies for its ability to link activities, outputs outcomes and the achievement of goals. The IHE TOC process required HE stakeholders to define the essential and adequate conditions necessary for achieving the desired goal of producing economically engaged graduates. TOC utilizes backward mapping to identify interventions necessary to achieve the desired goal (Taplin, Clark, Collins, and Colby, 2013). This creates a set of connected outcomes known as a “pathway of change,” a framework around which the other elements of the theory such as indicators, means of verification, and assumptions are developed. TOC leads to more efficient planning, monitoring, and evaluation, because progress towards the achievement of longer-term goals can easily be measured beyond mere identification of outputs (De Silva et al., 2014).

WORKSHOP FOR HEADS OF HEIS The workshop for Heads of HEIs gathered together forty-five participants to develop a TOC that would see HEIs contributing to the national goal of sustainable socio-economic development by leveraging on the benefits of IHE in assisting HEIs to industrialize and modernize Zimbabwe. In developing the IHE TOC (Figure 31.1), the participants deliberated on the pilot findings and resolved to focus on the following seven outcomes: 1. increased presence of international students and staff; 2. active memoranda of understandings (research, teaching, and exchanges);

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

FIGURE 31.1: IHE theory of change. Source: Garwe and Thondhlana, 2019b.

521

522

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

3. increased impact research and publications; 4. increased innovations and patents; 5. increased harmonized programs; 6. relevant curricula and favourable international rankings; and 7. institutional capability, culture, and awareness. For each of the seven outcomes, the expected outputs, activities, indicators, means of verification, and assumptions were spelt out, thus completing the TOC framework. The TOC framework formed the basis of the development of an IHE policy framework at the all stakeholder workshop. The participants at the workshop noted that every HEI was engaged in some form of internationalization and emphasized the need to quickly develop the IHE policy framework to guide HEIs in developing their own IHE policies and strategies. Whilst many benefits would derive from this well-structured approach to internationalization, it was agreed that the key benefit would be the momentum given to research through attracting experienced academics (local and foreign) who want to contribute to Zimbabwe on a temporary or full-time basis. There was the need to find ways of accommodating academics and professionals who would not necessarily have to leave their current jobs (unless they so wish to) in order to contribute to the development of Zimbabwe. The all-stakeholder workshop on IHE leveraged on Zimbabwe’s new political dispensation’s thrust towards re-engagement and was guided by the vision of the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development to come up with frameworks to reconfigure HE and create value through teaching, research, community service, innovation, and enterprise development (Education 5.0). By so doing, the higher education sector would spearhead the nation’s quest to industrialize and modernize in order to achieve the middle-income status by 2030. The workshop program and the profiles of key facilitators were availed to the 350 invitees attracting 285 participants (Figure 31.2 shows a picture of the executive participants) from various government ministries inclusive of: Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development, Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage, Finance and Economic Development, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services, Labour, Primary and Secondary Education, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Environment Tourism and Hospitality Industry and Health and Child Care. In addition participants also came from: universities, polytechnics, industrial training centers, teachers colleges, industry and commerce, Research Council of Zimbabwe, ZIMSEC and ZIMCHE. In deciding which key stakeholder to invite, consideration was given to, for example, the key role that an institution/organization played towards facilitating internationalization, taking into cognizance the IHE challenges indicated by HEIs. For example, Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs were deemed critical for resolving issues to do with the attraction and seamless immigration of foreign students and staff, Finance and Economic Development to give input regarding how to strategize around financial constraints etc. Highlights of issues raised at the workshop included the realization that in response to the effects of globalization, HEIs should operate on an increasingly international basis through interacting with international partners and participating in the world economy. Zimbabwe was urged to take advantage of the high literacy rate to attract Foreign Direct Investment through high-quality programmatic education that produces goods and

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

523

FIGURE 31.2: Participants at the all-stakeholder workshop, inclusive of Minister and Permanent Secretary.

services. This way, HEIs should move from being cost to being revenue centers. The need for the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development to assist in the recruitment of foreign students and to support HEIs in establishing internationalization structures and partnerships with recruiting agencies was underscored. HEIs were applauded for inculcating entrepreneurial and innovation skills and values in students, producing tangible research outputs, and encouraging selfreliance through enterprise development in the true spirit of the Education 5.0 concept adopted by the Country’s higher education system. This reflects the prudence of situating “international standards” within the context of local needs as expounded by Nyerere (1966). In order to develop the policy framework for IHE, workshop participants were allocated to seven groups each led by a university Registrar to further brainstorm and address pertinent questions (as guided by the IHE consultant) that would shape the IHE framework around the seven outcomes identified in the IHE TOC and endorsed by the workshop participants.

TASKFORCE WORKSHOPS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THE POLICY FRAMEWORK The IHE outcomes need to be packaged and communicated in a framework document, whilst making use of appropriate policy language. Accordingly, a taskforce made up of all

524

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 31.3: Registrars at a taskforce meeting at the Chinhoyi University Hotel.

university Registrars, chaired by one of them, and coordinated by ZIMCHE was selected to further develop the IHE policy framework. The choice of Registrars proved invaluable to the success of the project due to their expert knowledge of what constitutes a policy document. A case in point was when the Registrars were able to isolate the language pertaining to IHE strategy (from stakeholder inputs) from that which should constitute a policy. In addition to the four workshops held at various HEIs (See Figure 31.3 showing the taskforce at work), the taskforce worked back and forth incorporating inputs from their constituencies and further deliberating as a group. An expert from the University of Nottingham global engagement office (working together ZIMCHE) was responsible for guiding and overseeing the development of the IHE framework as well as benchmarking with international best practices. During the development of the framework, all stakeholders were given an opportunity to provide comments. These inputs into the process had a great impact on the final product. Engagement was done telephonically, through e-mails, website, and workshop presentations. The draft IHE framework was presented to all stakeholders at a dissemination workshop. It was then finalized, packaged, and submitted to the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development for further scrutiny and finalization. It is important to note that a policy framework is a living document that will be subjected to regular revisions and updates in order to fully respond to the changing higher education environment.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

525

CONCLUSION The goal of this project was to develop a well-researched IHE policy framework that represents the input and consensus of all the stakeholders. The framework will provide HEIs with a basis upon which to develop their own institutional policies. Although all HEIs engaged in some form of internationalization, this was done in an ad hoc and unstructured manner, calling for the development of a national policy to guide IHE practice. It was interesting to note that all higher education stakeholders perceived the benefits of IHE from different angles but with mutually inclusive effects to institutional and national development. For staff in HEIs, the most critical focus of the IHE policy rested on attracting foreign students and increasing international sabbaticals for academic staff. HEI management perceived the potential mutually reinforcing benefits for institutional cultures, HEI finances, staff development, student satisfaction, and employability to be key. ZIMCHE’s interests rested on protecting the quality of student teaching and learning experience through resolving welfare issues and addressing the shortage of senior academics. For heads of HEIs, giving momentum to research was at the core of IHE activities through attracting experienced academics who want to contribute to the development of Zimbabwe on temporary or full time bases. The parent Ministry found the attraction of international students as the low hanging fruit that would help spur the re-integration of Zimbabwe with the international community. Powerful lessons for Zimbabwe and beyond can be derived from this project. First, the complexities of IHE noted in the literature (Caruana, 2010; Mertkan et al., 2016) were evident in terms of challenging the process of mobilizing diverse institutions to co-develop a national IHE policy that all institutions could identify with. In this regard the role of a respected, trusted, as well as strategically positioned body such as ZIMCHE, in terms of its overseeing mandate of HEIs and its links with the responsible Ministry as well as other related sectors, has been critical for success. ZIMCHE has been able to access HEIs in the scoping sample, interview high-profile staff, and mobilize HEIs to productively participate in the project. Relatedly, collaboration of HEIs in this project, working together at strategic levels, has had the effect of evidencing the effectiveness of collaboration when developing national policy frameworks. As noted by the Registrars tasked with collating ideas into a draft of the policy framework document, the exercise benefited from the diverse expertise and practices of their institutions to ensure that there was full representation. The result is a document that all institutions can identify with and make use of. Similarly, the evidence-based multi-pronged approach which involved consultations at various levels including the scoping study, ZIMCHE seminar, the various workshops, as well as the collaboration and knowledge exchange with an internationally recognized partner, provided a rigorous scientific approach. The success has been due to buy-in by all key stakeholders who, again, feel a strong sense of ownership of the process and product. In addition, multi-sectoral involvement, as highlighted in the literature (Shriberg, 2002), has been critical for success. For example, key Ministries which facilitate mobility, such as Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs, needed to be engaged to lobby the development of policies that support staff and student mobility. The availability of funding to conduct research and run a series of workshops also contributed to the success of the project. To this end, funding was a collaborative effort provided by the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development, ZIMCHE and its partner, University of Nottingham, and HEIs is a clear show of the benefits of IHE.

526

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The development of a national policy framework has only laid the critical foundation for IHE in Zimbabwe. IHE will be a continuous process involving, for example, the development of institutional policies and strategies/agendas and their operationalization. This will require sustained support of institutional initiatives/activities by the Ministry and ZIMCHE in terms of funding and capacity building. In addition, the benefit of intraand inter institutional collaboration has been highlighted and that the success of IHE is to be found in the strengths within the institutions themselves is evident.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was kindly funded by the ESRC Impact Accelerator Account, University of Nottingham; Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education and the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary and Education, Science and Technology Development, Zimbabwe. Appreciation goes to the leadership and staff from the parent Ministry, staff from ZIMCHE, all Zimbabwean HEIs, the University Registrars, the experts and all the stakeholders for their respective contribution to a worthy cause.

REFERENCES Altbach, P.G. (2015). Perspectives on internationalizing higher education. International Higher Education, 27: 6–8. doi:10.6017/IHE.2015.79.5837. Bolsmann, C., and Miller, H. (2008). International student recruitment to universities in England: Discourse, rationales and globalization. Globalization, Societies and Education, 6(1): 75–88. doi:10.1080/14767720701855634 Brandenburg, U., and de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 15–17. https://doi.org/10.6017/IHE.2011.62.8533 Butcher, N., Wilson-Strydom, M., Hoosen, S., MacDonald, C., Moore, A., and Barnes, L. (2008). A profile of higher education in the region. In Kotecha, P. (ed.), Towards a Common Future: Higher Education in the SADC Region. Johannesburg: SARUA . Caruana, V. (2010). Global citizenship for all: Putting the “Higher” back into UK Higher Education? In Maringe, F., and Foskett, N. (eds), Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 51–63. Chingono, H. (2010). Zimbabwe Look East Policy. China Monitor. Stellenbosch: Centre for Chinese Studies. Cr˘a ciun, D. (2015). Systematizing internationalization policy in higher education: Towards a typology. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 15(1): 49–56. http://dx.doi. org/10.15208/pieb.2015.04 Cr˘a ciun D. (2018). National policies for higher education internationalization: A global comparative perspective. In Curaj, A., Deca L., and Pricopie R. (eds), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies. New York Springer International Publishing, pp. 95–105. De Silva M.J., Breuer, E., Lee, L., Asher, L., Chowdhary, N., Lund, C., and Patel, V. (2014). Theory of change: A theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions. Trials, 15: 267. De Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for Internationalization of Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America. Amsterdam: EAIE . De Wit, H., and Hunter, F. (2015). Trends, issues and challenges in the internationalization of

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

527

higher education. In McGrath, S., and Gu, Q. (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Education and Development. Routledge: Abingdon. Eastwood, J., Conroy, R., Naicker, S., West, P., Tutt, R., and Plange-Rhule, J. (2005). Loss of health professionals from sub-Saharan Africa: The pivotal role of the UK . Lancet, 365: 1893–1900. Eckel, P., Green, M., and Hill, B. (2001). On Change V: Riding the Waves of Change: Insights from Transforming Institutions. Washington, DC : American Council on Education, pp. 23–36. Egron-Polak, E., and Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing Expectations, Fundamental Values. IAU Fourth Global Survey. Paris: International Association of Universities. Gaidzanwa, R. (2007). Alienation, gender and institutional culture at the University of Zimbabwe. Feminist Africa, 8: 60–82. Garwe E.C. (2011). ZIMCHE–SARUA–IOM diaspora lecturers temporary return project. Building Regional Higher Education Capacity through Academic Mobility, 3(1): 49–57. Garwe, E.C., and Thondhlana, J. (2019a). Higher education systems and institutions, Zimbabwe. In Teixeira P., and Shin J. (eds), Encyclopaedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Dordrecht: Springer. Garwe, E.C., and Thondhlana, J. (2019b). Harmonisation of Higher Education: Internationalization Focus. Available online: https://events.aau.org/corevip/wpcontent/ uploads/sites/7/2019/07/HARMONISATION-OF-HIGHER-EDUCATION. INTERNATIONALIZATION-FOCUS.pdf Jowi, J.O. (2012). African universities in the global knowledge economy: The good and ugly of internationalization. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(1): 153–165. Jowi, J.O., and Huisman, J. (2009). African universities and internationalization. Higher Education Policy, 22: 259–261. Kamidza, R. (2017). From Antagonism to Re-engagement: Zimbabwe’s Trade Negotiations with the European Union, 2000–2016. Cameroon: Langaa Research and Publishing Common Initiative Group. Kaur, J., Sirat, M., and Azman, N. (2008). The scenario of internationalization and globalization of higher education in Malaysia. In Kaur, J., Sirat, M., and Azman, N. (eds), Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia. Knight, J. (1997). Internationalization of higher education: A conceptual framework. In Knight, J., and de Wit, H. (eds), Internationalization of Higher Education in Asia Pacific Countries. Amsterdam: EAIE , pp. 25–36. Knight, J. (2008). The internationalization of higher education: Complexities and realities. In Teferra, D., and Knight, J. (eds), Higher Education in Africa: The International Dimension. Accra/Boston: AAU/CIHE , pp. 1–43. Kotecha, P., and Perold, H. (2010). Rebuilding higher education in Zimbabwe: A needs analysis. SARUA-Southern African Regional Universities Association: SARUA Leadership Dialogue Series, 2(1), 33–48. Machawira, M.S. (2010). Baseline Study on the Status of Human Capital Development and Training Institutions in Zimbabwe. Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Zimbabwe. Magwa, W. (2015). Enhancing Africa’s renewal through internationalization of higher education: A review of management strategies and issues. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research, 27(2): 255–273.

528

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Matic´, J.L. (2019). The internationalization of American higher education: A positional competition perspective. Globalization, Societies and Education, 17(3): 274–284, https:// doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1584550 Mansilla, V.B., and Jackson, A. (2013). Educating for global competence: Learning redefined for an interconnected world. In Jacobs, H. (ed.), Mastering Global Literacy. New York, NY: Solution Tree, pp. 5–27. Marginson, S., and Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education. Higher Education, 43: 281–309. McGrath, S., Thondhlana, J., and Garwe, E.C. (2019). Internationalization of higher education and national development: The case of Zimbabwe. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, doi: 10.1080/03057925.2019.1684241 Mertkan, S., Gilanlioglu, I., and McGrath, S. (2016). Internationalizing higher education: From grand plans to evolving responses. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(6): 889–902. Mugwagwa, N. (2014). Zimbabwe: How can the diaspora contribute to development? Voices. Available online: https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/zimbabwe-how-can-diaspora-contributedevelopment Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2015). Decoloniality as the Future of Africa. History Compass, 13(10): 485–496, https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12264 Nherera, C. (2000). The role of emerging Universities in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research, 12(3): 38–61. Nyerere, J. (1966). Freedom and Unity: Uhuru na Umoja. A Selection from Writings and Speeches 1952–65. Dar-es-Salaam: Oxford University Press. Olson, C.L., Green, F.M., and Barbara, A.H. (2006). A Handbook for Advancing Comprehensive Internationalization: What Institutions Can Do and What Students Can Learn. Washington DC : ACE . Portela, C. (2014). EU use of targeted sanctions evaluating effectiveness (CEPS document 319). New York, NY: Social Science Research Network. Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures Education, 1: 248–270. Razak, D.A. (2012). Decolonizing our universities: A perspective from the global south. SARUA Leadership Dialogue Series, 4(2): 28–38. Rensburg, I., David, S., and Motala, S. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: A South African perspective. Frontiers of Education in China, 10: 91–109. Rezaei, H., Yousefi, A., Larijani, B., Dehnavieh, R., Rezaei, N., and Adibi, P. (2018). Internationalization or globalization of higher education. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 7(8), https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_25_17 Rogerson, C., and Crush, J. (2008). The recruiting of South African health care professionals. In Connell, J. (ed.), The International Migration of Health Workers. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 199–224. Saxenian, A. (2005). From brain drain to brain circulation: Transnational communities and regional upgrading in India and China. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(2): 35–61. Available online: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/scid2005.pdf Shizha, E., and Kariwo, M. (2011). Education and Development in Zimbabwe. Rotterdam: Sense. Shriberg, M. (2002). Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: Strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory. Higher Education Policy, 15(2): 153–167.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ZIMBABWE

529

Southern African Regional Universities Association (SARUA) (2010). Rebuilding Higher Education in Zimbabwe—Implications for Regional Collaboration, vol. 2, no. 1. Retrieved from: http://www.sarua.org/files/publications/SARUA%20leadership%20Dialogue%20 Series/Leadership%20Dialogue%20Series_Vol%202%20No%201.pdf Stromquist, N. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in university environments. Higher Education, 53(1): 81–105. Taplin, D.H., Clark, H., Collins, E., and Colby, D.C. (2013). Theory of Change. Technical Papers: A Series of Papers to Support Development of Theories of Change Based on Practice in the Field. New York: Actknowledge and the Rockefeller Foundation. Available online: http: //www.actknowledge.org/resources/documents/ToC-Tech-Papers.pdf Tarusikirwa, M.C., and Mafa, O. (2017). Internationalization in higher education: Challenges for research collaboration for academics in developing countries (Zimbabwe). International Journal of Asian Social Science, 7(2): 140–149. Teichler, U. (2009). Internationalization of higher education: European experiences. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10: 93–106. Tevera, D.S., and Crush, J. (2003). The New Brain Drain from Zimbabwe. Migration Policy Series No. 29; South African Migration Project. Available online: http://www.queensu.ca/ samp/sampresources/samppublications/policyseries/Acrobat29.pdf Thondhlana, J., Abdulrahman, H., Garwe, E.C., and McGrath, S. (2020). Exploring the internationalization of Zimbabwe’s higher education institutions through a decolonial lens: Postcolonial continuities and disruptions. Journal of Studies in International Education. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1028315320932319 Tirivangana, A.M. (2019). Education 5.0 and Vision 2030: Re-configuring Zim university degrees. The Patriot, March 28, 2019. Available online: https://www.thepatriot.co.zw/ education/education-5-0-and-vision-2030-re-configuring-zim-university-degrees/ UNICEF Zimbabwe (2011). Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition, 2010 Report Evaluation (PDF). UNICEF. Zeleza, P.T. (2012). Internationalization in higher education: Opportunities and challenges for the knowledge project in the global south. In Kotecha, P. (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education Perspectives from The Global South. Southern African Regional Universities Association, 4(2), 4–18. Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education (ZIMCHE) Act (2006). http://www.law.co.zw/ downloads/statutes/25/Zimbabwe%20Council%20For%20Higher%20Education%20Act.pdf

CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO

Internationalizing Higher Education An Exploratory Analysis of Policy Frameworks, Challenges, and Opportunities GIFTY OFORIWAA GYAMERA

INTRODUCTION Internationalization has increasingly become indispensable to Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) and nation states. It is perceived as a vital tool for competitiveness and visibility in a globalized world (Jowi, Knight, and Sehoole, 2013). It is also a strategic priority for national governments globally because of the economic, political, social, and academic benefits associated with it. The emphasis on internationalization has increasingly been embraced by many African universities (Alemu, 2014). It has equally become an important concept in universities in Ghana (Gyamera, 2018). Some key fundamental rationales are to position the institutions in the international arena and also to enhance economic gains, particularly through international students’ recruitment and collaboration (Gyamera, 2018). It has also been argued that effective internationalization will enhance international partnerships and intercultural values and competence. Whilst the espoused benefits of internationalization appear exhaustive in literature, it is undisputable that effective policies are key in driving the internationalization agenda. However much is known about key policies in many countries in the global North (e.g., Tamtik, 2018; Ota, 2018), little is known about the regional, national, and institutional frameworks guiding internationalization processes and practices of universities in the Global South. This chapter, drawing on qualitative data in the Ghanaian context, examines the national and institutional policies and strategic focus on IHE, as well as motivations, challenges, and opportunities. The stakeholders, including those who set and influences policies on IHE, and the extent to which internationalization policies integrate with the national Higher Education (HE) policies will also be discussed. These key discussions will be preceded by a brief background of higher education in Ghana. The methods involved mainly document analyses and interviews. The chapter concludes with key suggestions for internationalization to be made a national priority and to be detangled from colonial patterns and processes both at the institutional and national levels. 530

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

531

BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW This section provides a brief literature review of the main concepts and issues in this chapter. These include internationalization of Higher Education (IHE), policy focus, opportunities and challenges of internationalization of IHE.

Internationalization as a Concept Though internationalization has assumed an increasingly important position in universities globally, it is a problematic term with its meanings changing across time and space. Knight (2008: 19) sees it as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education.” De Wit, Hunter, Howard, and Egron-Polak (2015: 29), building on this definition, perceive it as “the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society.” It is also perceived as a process of recognizing and appreciating the interdependence of higher education institutions in promoting an exchange of culture, knowledge, and practices in order to enhance quality teaching and research and to address societal challenges, both nationally and internationally (Gyamera, 2018). Though there are varied definitions, there are common trends emphasizing intercultural exchange, partnership among institutions, and provision of quality education and research. However, mostly, both in literature and in practice, the concept of internationalization of higher education is used to define only a small part of internationalization or to emphasize a specific rationale for embarking on internationalization (De Wit, 2010). The term is often used, De Wit notes, in relation to the curriculum or student mobility. An internationalized curriculum mainly focus on international studies, global studies, multicultural education, intercultural education, and peace education (ibid.). Student mobility usually relates to study abroad or education abroad (ibid.). However internationalization is defined, it has become fundamental to quality higher education and it is imperative that countries and institutions develop the right blend of policies to realize the desired benefits.

Policy Landscape of Internationalization of Higher Education The apparent importance of internationalization has promoted strategic approaches to its development and provision (Rumbley, Hudson, and Sandström, 2019). Nonetheless, as argued by Helms and Rumbley (2019), these strategic approaches and thinking have been characterized by scattered efforts and varied interests and emphases. Countries and institutions have responded to internationalization based on national contexts, needs, pressures, policy idiosyncrasies, and priorities. Hong (2018) has acknowledged three main dimensions of IHE. These involve overarching meta policies which are at the macro level (nation), institution-focused polices at the meso level (universities), and people-focused policies at the micro level (individuals). The central meta polices refer to macro and instructional policies in higher education for a period and this could be for one, two, five, or ten years. This policy focus provides the national agenda and priorities and could be reflected in reforms aimed to achieve particular goals in higher education. Policies at the national

532

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

level include all policies that impact or are impacted by international education in the country including immigration laws, foreign relation policies, trade, employment, and accreditation (Knight, 2004). They may also include giving more autonomy to universities in order to make decisions and seeking international funding from foreign agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals (Mok, 2012). Policies at the meso level institution refer to policies that are applicable to organizations such as universities and other education providers. These include policies to promote, for instance, academic programs, quality assurance and research equitable access, and infrastructure development (Ilieva, Tsiligiris, and Killingley, 2019). Knight (2014) also identified three broad developments of focus for IHE. These are people mobility, provider mobility, and formation of international hubs. People-focused policies refer to policies that are related directly to people and targeted and applicable groups such as students and academics. They could be policies to boost recruitment of international students and staff and improve their living conditions. These policies could emanate from bottom-up and top-down approaches to internationalization (Knight, 2004). With the top-down approach, policy starts at the national level while, with the bottom-up, it starts at the institutional level. Mostly, an effective international approach should not be one-dimensional, but multifaceted (Ilieva et al., 2019). It should focus on diverse issues spanning, for instance, student and staff mobility, quality assurance, and quality research.

Opportunities of Internationalization of Higher Education With effective policies, internationalization provides various opportunities (e.g., Jowi et al., 2013). These include students and staff exchange, collaborations, and research and publication. Student and Staff Mobility Student and staff mobility has become the hallmark of internationalization. It is perceived as crossing country borders for the purpose of or in the context of tertiary education (Richters and Teichler, 2006). As students and staff engage in international mobility, it improves academic performance and their global understanding, and enhances intercultural tolerance. Other benefits include the opportunity to seek adventure, to enhance international careers, and to learn a new language. Host institutions also benefit from diverse educational and research experiences and, sometimes, financial gains. Collaboration The need for international collaborations underlines most international engagement of universities. Collaboration provides opportunities for intellectual exchanges of knowledge and ideas, leading to professional learning and enhancement of academic profiles (Jibeen, Masha, and Khan, 2015). It enhances reputation, interdependence, interconnectivity, partnership, and mobility across the globe (Barrett, Crossley, and Fon, 2014). Currently, it is difficult to conceive of a university which may isolate itself from international collaborations. Research and Publications Key opportunities for collaborations are research and publications. Many universities have shifted from perceiving internationalization with international student recruitment to developing strong internationalization agendas with a key focus on research collaborations and capacity-building (University of Oxford,

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

533

2015). Almost half of all academic research produced worldwide is carried out through international collaborations (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). Internationally produced research is argued to be of the highest quality. It attracts high research citations when it addresses global challenges and benefits more than one nation (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). Many African universities have developed a strong desire, particularly for international collaborations, to strengthen their capacity for teaching, research, scholarship, and innovation (Alemu, 2014).

CHALLENGES Policy development of internationalization, particularly in an African context, is bedevilled with various challenges including limited funding, an emphasis on economic gain, and Westernization of internationalization with its negative impact and implications particularly on ex-colonial countries.

Limited Funding A major challenge affecting IHE policies is lack of funding. Teferra and Altbach (2004) perceive the funding challenge as the severest of all the challenges confronting African universities. The lack of funding, and subsequent lack of resources, has made the universities become “permanent supplicants for foreign development assistance” (Lulat, 2005: 379). These challenges further exacerbate the power imbalances between the Global South and the Global North. The West dictates issues on polices including the pace, values, research, and knowledge (Harris, 2007). Contrarily, many Western and Asian countries have many internationalization policies and “lavishly funded programmes” (Altbach, 2007: 293). These programs include the Erasmus Mundus program, which “aims to enhance the quality of European higher education and to promote dialogue and understanding between people and cultures through cooperation with Third-Countries” (website of European commission).

Emphasis on Economic Gain Recently, internationalization has been engulfed with economic and instrumental thinking (Harris, 2011). These economic rationales are linked to the perception of higher education as a “lucrative service that can be sold in the global market place” (Naidoo, 2010: 250). However, such an emphasis on financial aspects denies other experiences, including intercultural exchange and learning, which I argue should be a key focus of internationalization (Gyamera, 2018). Mostly, it is wrongly assumed that intercultural exchange is a byproduct of internationalization. Little effort is made to encourage student intercultural learning (Gyamera, 2018). In student exchange programs, institutions assume that the international student will automatically acquire the necessary and desired inter-cultural knowledge. However, this might not be the case. International students do not necessarily develop intercultural knowledge, skills, or sensitivities (e.g., Bennett, 2012). As Bennett states, “the mere experience of being in another culture, even of being immersed in another culture, does not necessarily translate into either specific knowledge about that culture or transferable principles about intercultural relations” (Bennett, 2012: 419). There is a need for sustained effort and strategies to enhance intercultural exchange

534

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Negative Policy Impacts on Ex-Colonial Countries Apparent conditions including international standards and competitiveness push internationalization strategies and frameworks towards policy convergence. However, particular policies may impact differently on different countries, depending on many factors including the historical, the economic, and the socio-political positioning of the country (Knight, 2008; Jowi et al., 2013). It has been argued by various scholars that many predominant policies on IHE impact negatively on ex-colonial countries. For instance, the predominant use of the English language and the imperative to publish in Western journals perpetuate colonial legacies of inequalities and dependency on the West (e.g., Fanon, 2004; Rizvi, Lingard, and Lavia, 2006). In some cases, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), underlying collaborations for instance, could negatively impact national cultures and traditions, since the funder dictates the conditions and pace of the research often promoting their cultural practices and beliefs. It could be argued that most of the challenges confronting ex-colonial universities in their internationalization efforts are the colonial legacies and patterns. Many scholars have argued for a decolonial process to mitigate some of the effects of colonial effects (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). The next session discusses the concept of decoloniality.

DECOLONIALITY Decoloniality is a collective name for all “those anti-slavery, anti-racism, anti-colonialism, anti-capitalism, antipatriarchy, anti-Eurocentric hegemonic epistemology initiatives and struggles emerging in different geo-political sites haunted by coloniality in its physical, institutional, ideational and metaphysical forms” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018: 43). It requires ex-colonial countries to resist blindly following Western values and standards and to gain confidence in indigenous knowledge, practices, and methodologies (Chilisa, Major, Gaotlhobogwe, and Mokgolodi, 2016). It challenges Eurocentrism, re/centers marginalized indigenous knowledge systems, and values ideologies. Decolonization of higher education calls for institutions to extricate themselves from their colonial histories and practices (Santos, 2014). In the context of growing marginalization and inequalities across higher education systems globally, decolonization has emerged as an important social, political, and intellectual concept to enhance, among others, racial and social inequalities (Mbembe, 2015). It is critical for universities to embark on a transformative decolonial process to rid themselves of prevalent colonial patterns.

METHODOLOGY The study drew on qualitative methodology and involved multiple case studies of three universities. These institutions were chosen based on feasibility, age, and size. Data were gathered mainly through interviews and documentary analyses. Documents included government and institutional policies, reports and data from government, international organizations and universities’ websites. Mission and vision statements of the universities were also analyzed. The interviews involved face-to-face interviews with Senior Management of the Universities, Deans, Heads of Departments, Directors of the International Programme Offices (IPOs), and students. One key policymaker was also

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

535

interviewed. Thirty students and sixteen non-student participants were interviewed, comprising seven group interviews and three individual interviews. The individual interviews included international student leadership. Data were gathered between September 2018 and October, 2019. The research questions framing this study are: What are the universities’ perceptions of internationalization? What are the policies/frameworks and focus on IHE in Ghana, and who are the main stakeholders? What are the challenges and opportunities, and what are future aspirations and guidelines? Data were collected and analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches to explore policy areas and key initiators and supporters of these policies. The theoretical framework was informed by decoloniality. Decoloniality enables research on the marginalized (Chilisa, 2012: 14). Utilising a decolonial framework helped perceive and interpret the internationalization efforts of the universities with a colonial lens and to explain the extent to which colonial legacies influence policies and practices in universities in Ghana. It aided in raising the consciousness of the universities to shed their colonial outlook and patterns of being and doing things. The concept provided the need for transformations in the universities to avoid overdependence on the West and marginalization of non-Western ideologies and practices. The real names of the universities were not mentioned, as required in most qualitative studies (Allen, 2017). This is to protect the institutions and participants from harm or any repercussions institutionally, nationally, and internationally. I consider some aspects of policies pursued by universities, their challenges and effects as sensitive information, which could impact negatively on the internationalization efforts of these universities including international students’ recruitment, collaborations, and attempts at securing funding.

OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN GHANA Despite increasing inclination towards international policy convergence, there are divergences due to national paths, which mediate policy processes. This section provides aspects of the historical, political, and socio-economic context of higher education in Ghana. Ghana has a well-developed higher educational system made up of universities, colleges, polytechnics, and other professional and degree-awarding institutions. There are ten traditional universities, eighty-one private universities, and eight technical universities. The technical universities were converted from existing polytechnics in 2017. Higher education in Ghana has gone through several phases since the nation achieved independence in 1957. These phases, marked by various reforms, policies, and strategies, involve Africanization, nationalization, and development, internationalization, and globalization. These phases overlap at various times and sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between them. The most significant of these reforms is the 1987 reform. It was ambitious and broad, spanning the various levels of the educational systems (Girdwood, 1999). A major aspect of this reform was the change of structure and content of primary and secondary education (Girdwood, 1999). It, however, also sought to remedy the deteriorated conditions of the universities to make them more responsive to the national and international contexts. As part of the process, many governmental bodies were

536

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

established to assess programs to be pursued in the various higher educational institutions (Girdwood, 1999: 11). Subsequently, the National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) and the National Accreditation Board (NAB) were introduced. The role of the National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE), established by Act 454 of 1993, is mainly monetary (website of NCTE). The Council was tasked, among other things, to advise the Minister of Education on the development of institutions of tertiary education in Ghana, and their financial needs and purposes of annual education budgets. It was also mandated to advise governing councils of these institutions, including suggesting suitable measures for generating funds for the institutions. In addition to the monetary functions, the Council recommends national standards and norms. These include standards and norms on staff, costs, accommodation, and time utilization for approval of the Minister. Generally, the National Council for Tertiary Education is “devoted to providing leadership in the direction, functions, role and relevance of tertiary education in Ghana” (website of NCTE). The National Accreditation Board (NAB) was established in 1993 by the Government of Ghana under PNDCL 317, 1993 to contribute to furtherance of better management of tertiary education as the Quality Assurance body at the tertiary level (White Paper on the Reforms to the Tertiary Education System; GOG, 1991). It is the mandate of the Board to ensure that the country’s tertiary education system becomes responsive to a fastchanging world and makes its graduates progressively competitive in the world of work. The Board supervises all programs and subjects introduced in all tertiary institutions, both public and private, to ensure that they are within the accepted standards and norms. In addition, the Board approves the establishment of any tertiary institution in the country. It has the mandate to prevent the establishment of institutions or close down existing ones if they fail to meet national standards. In this direction, it set out to control the quality and relevance of teaching, learning, and curriculum within a self-regulatory framework (White Paper; GOG, 2007: 2). For instance, though the universities preserved the right of developing their curriculum, the programs had to be assessed and approved by the NCTE and the NAB. Though the reform was broad, visionary, and internationally widely acclaimed, the project was “marginally successful” due to many factors including the failure of both the University Rationalization Committee (URC) and policymakers to define “academic quality” as well as the methodology to be used to ensure quality (Girdwood, 1999: x). With the assumption of a new government in 2000, various frameworks, strategies, policies, and reports were introduced to achieve desirable educational goals and achieve the goal of Ghana to become a middle-income country by the year 2015. Subsequently, in 2007, another educational reform was introduced to ensure the “formation of wellbalanced individuals with the requisite knowledge, skills, values, aptitudes and attitudes to become functional and productive” (White Paper; GOG, 2007: 5.0). The reform aimed at developing Ghana as a knowledge-based, scientific, and technologically driven society. In terms of tertiary education, there was the emphasis to enhance research and postgraduate programs. The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Party, led by John Evans Atta Mills, assumed power in 2008. This government introduced the “Better Ghana Agenda” educational policies. Though no new reform was introduced, the policy goal of “the Better Ghana Agenda” aimed to enhance “access, quality, equity and relevance at the tertiary level through a number of strategies” (official website of the Better Ghana Agenda). Though all these reforms had emphasized the essence for the universities to meet international

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

537

standards, there had not been much focus on sustainable development of international HE and enhancing Ghanaian universities’ global competitiveness. Financially, Government is the main funder of the universities, providing over 50 percent of the tertiary education sector1 funding. Next to government subvention is Internally Generated Funds (IGF) and then the GETFund (e.g., NCTE Budget Report, 2016, 2017, 2018). The GETFund is a public trust set up by an Act of Parliament in 2000. Its core mandate is to provide funding to supplement government effort for the provision of educational infrastructure and facilities within the public sector from the pre-tertiary to the tertiary level. Since its inception in 2000, it has provided much financial support to universities in Ghana (Manuh, Gariba, and Budu, 2007). Government subvention, which is the major source of funding, is considered woefully inadequate by the universities. Subsequently the universities continue to experience expanding funding gap over the years. For instance, in 2017, there was a gap of 20 percent whilst in 2018, the gap was 48 percent (NCTE, 2016, 2017, 2018).

PERCEPTION ON INTERNATIONALIZATION The universities perceive internationalization as important to their visibility and positioning in a globalized world. This is highlighted particularly in their vision and mission statements, and strategic plans. The visions below reflects the importance the universities attach to internationalization: To be a University with a worldwide acclaim that is strongly positioned for innovative teaching, research, outreach and professional development (University A). To be a world-class higher education provider in both academic and professional disciplines, nationally entrenched, regionally relevant, and globally recognized (University B). Has the vision, commitment, and the obligation to facilitate the progression of internationalization in its broad sense to the benefit of our university first of all, staff, students, and faculty (University C). The universities have an unwavering perception of internationalization as the medium to advance their global status and international reputation. Internationalization is also perceived as fundamental for intensive research and quality education as well as indispensable to becoming world class. As acknowledged by one of the universities, though it is difficult to comprehend what it entails for a university to be world class, they acknowledge “that should not take away from University of . . . an ambition to become world class in a real sense” (Website, University A). To be first class, this university aims to be research intensive and relevant, locally and internationally, attract foreign students, enhance their output globally, and increase their resourcefulness. Whist the majority of the universities perceive internationalization as critical to their survival globally, it is only University A which has a standalone, publicized strategic plan

It should be noted that tertiary education embraces all post-secondary education institutions that offer training leading to the award of a diploma or degree (White paper on the report of the education reform review committee, 2002).

1

538

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

for internationalization. In all the other institutions, internationalization strategies are integrated into their overall institutional strategic plan.

THE POLICIES, FOCUS, AND KEY ACTORS This section explores the policy focus at the national and institutional levels. It also looks at the key actors.

National Level Until November 2018, Ghana had no comprehensive national policy on higher education. Subsequently, there was no comprehensive national policy on International Higher Education (IHE) to regulate and direct internationalization activities, including the curricula, teaching, research, quality assurance outreach programs and the framework which promotes and showcases the national core values. In 2019, a comprehensive higher education policy, developed in 2018, was launched and handed over to the NCTE. Although a development of a comprehensive national policy on higher education, it did not transcend to a comprehensive policy on international education. Internationalization policies are more of a bottom-up approach. This approach has been acknowledged in the national Tertiary Education Policy Document confirming that “Although some universities have internal policies on internationalization, there are no clear guidelines at the national level to direct the process” (Ministry of Education, 2018: 61). In acknowledging the importance of internationalization, the document provided the government preparedness to support internationalization with an emphasis on: foreign students’ enrollment; academic staff exchange, including the Ghanaian academic diaspora; internationalization of the curricula; institutional cooperation and networking; marketing of Ghana tertiary education outside the country; and facilitation of acquisition of visas by students and faculty in the mobility program (Ministry of Education, 2018). It is significant to emphasize that, with the exception of international students’ enrollment, which the policy stated as 15 percent, there were few guidelines for all the other policy statements. For instance, on curriculum, the policy statement indicated the need to internationalize “some” aspects of the curriculum but was silent as to the extent or which aspects of the curriculum should be internationalized or what the emphasis should be. There were no financial commitments or guidelines to regulate any of the policy statements. The explicit target for only international student enrollment is unsurprising since, mostly, internationalization is perceived as synonymous with international students (Gyamera, 2018). The 2020 goal of the Ministry of Education is “Changing Ghana through Education; building an educated, skilled and competent society equipped with global competencies.” The Ministry however, has remained silent on IHE. With the exception of less than a page devoted to “internationalization” in the National Policy for Tertiary Education, there have been no or very few national discourses, debates, and discussions on IHE. The website of the Ministry of Education does not appear to have even one word on internationalization. The limited IHE policies have several implications, including: challenges of funding; limited national regulatory framework; and programs to enhance the internationalization process. Funding of internationalization processes of the universities, for example, is more limited to granting very inadequate scholarships to students and staff to study abroad (Effah and Senadza, 2008). In 2013, the government

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

539

declared a further reduction to the number of scholarships given to students through the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) to study abroad. Unsurprisingly, Ghana attained low scores in the survey to explore National Policies Framework in Higher Education (Times Higher Education, 2019). Scores attained by every particular country indicated the level of government support provided to the country’s universities. Ghana Higher Education scored zero in all the indicators: quality assurance and recognition, openness, access, and sustainability. Out of the twenty-six countries involved in the study, Ghana placed twenty.

Institutional Level Equally, at the institutional level, none of the universities in Ghana appears to have an institutional-wide policy on internationalization though they have standalone policies on some aspects of internationalization with a particular emphasis on establishing International Programs Offices (IPOs) and recruitment of foreign students. Establishment of International Offices All the institutions have IPOs, which coordinate international programs. They initiate, facilitate, and promote international programs and activities, students and staff mobility, collaborations, funding, research and scholarship, and total visibility of the universities at the global levels. They also develop and communicate all relevant strategies and plans, and implement policy rules and guidelines for internationalization in the universities. The center is headed by a director who is usually a senior academic of professorial status. At University C, the center is divided into further units with a coordinator for each unit covering operations, international students, international projects, and airport pickups. The international offices operate closely with other centers including the quality assurance units. In addition to the international center, the universities have other centers to complement the internationalization activities of the universities. For instance, the Institutional Advancement Office (IAO), which was established in 2014 in one of the universities, has a center complementing the international office. It coordinates Alumni affairs, liaises with the university and the outside world, and embarks on fundraising activities to promote the goals of the university.

Student and Staff Mobility Academic mobility has become a hallmark of internationalization with a focus on international students’ recruitment (Knight, 2012). In Ghana, internationalization is mostly perceived as international students’ recruitment (Gyamera, 2018). Unsurprisingly, all the universities have policies on student mobility in their internationalization strategies. The target for international enrollment ranges between 5 and 10 percent in the universities. Until June 2019, when the Policy Document on Tertiary Education in Ghana was released, putting international student recruitment at 15 percent, the NCTE norm was 10 percent (NCTE, 2012). Students are attracted and recruited through many avenues including educational fairs, commissioned recruitment, social media, and visit of school management to embassies (Gyamera, 2015). Though it has been stated in many of the strategic plans that there is no focus on specific countries or regions with regards to international student recruitment, students are recruited mainly from neighboring countries, particularly Nigeria. The target of 5 to 10 percent has also never been met. International students make up a maximum of about

540

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

2 percent of the entire student population of University A. This university’s target is 10 percent. University C attracted only eleven students in 2016, seven in 2017, and sixteen in 2018. All the students were from neighboring African countries. Again, the majority of international students are mainly bachelor’s degree students. The few students from the Global North and other emerging economies mainly pursue short-term studies and are mostly from the United States. The universities equally have policies for local students to take courses in universities outside the country. Students selected for such programs for instance should have a total grade point not below 3.0 and should have completed their first year in the local universities. Efforts are also made to transfer credits gained to their local universities. These efforts are undermined due to challenges of funding, available travel abroad programs, visa restrictions, and difficulty in transferability of study abroad credits towards a degree. Another key challenge is local students’ reluctance to pursue such programs in other African universities. This attitude is based on the colonial legacies which influence the perception of African universities as inferior to Western universities. Pursuing a program in a Western university gives a sense of superiority and privilege. Regarding staff, all the universities have policies to attract international faculty and also for local staff to acquire international experiences. This is intended to boost capacity building in teaching, learning, and research and also to enhance capacity building. Staff mobility is confronted with similar challenges, as mentioned above. Although the universities implement institutional-wide policy, they are guided by some strategic plans and focus, which I elaborate on in this subsection.

Strategic Focus The strategic focus includes focus on funding and international collaboration. I now look at each of them briefly. Focus on Funding Ghanaian universities continue to be confronted with ubiquitous financial challenges in spite of efforts to address the financial crises, including introduction of student user fees in the mid-1990s and the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) in early 2000. Although these have helped to some extent, to improve in particular, infrastructure, staff and faculty development, and research, the universities continue to be confronted with staggering limited funding. Funding of the internationalization process of the universities, for example, is more limited to granting scholarships to students and staff to study abroad (Effah and Senadza, 2008). These scholarships are, however, limited. In 2013, the government declared it had further reduced the number of scholarships given to students through the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) to study abroad. Presently, the Fund is more focused on capital expenditures (e.g., NCTE, 2018, 2017, 2016). However, similar to most African governments, the government of Ghana gives their public universities autonomy to secure grants from foreign sources, including national governments, universities, and the international donor community. Subsequently, almost all the universities have ideas outlined in their strategic plans to attract funding from both internal and external sources to support internationalization activities. The activities include expanding infrastructure and boosting faculty and staff mobility. Internally, they have collaborated with public and private organizations and industries to derive funding (website of universities). The focus to generate funding has resulted in an emphasis on

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

541

economic rationale of recruiting international students and extreme dependence on foreign donors. It also worsens colonial legacies (Gyamera, 2015). Collaboration Collaboration has become an important strategic focus of the universities. All the institutions have initiated international and national collaborations with local and international higher education, industries, and individuals to promote their internationalization agendas. The collaboration agreements center on several programs and activities, including research, teaching, training, workshops, student and staff exchange, and any other program that enhances capacity building. One of the key challenges associated with collaborations with the Global North is what a participant explained as the “Master–Servant relationship.” Due to the limited funding confronting many of the universities, generally, most of the collaborations are funded by institutions from the Global North. This does not enhance equal leverage of the collaborations. In such cases, most of the decisions on the funding are determined by foreign donors, including allocation of the funding and research output (University Strategic Plan). There is an “apparent lack of control of funding and ownership of research outputs.”

Research and Publication Research capacity and output are highly captured in the strategic plans of the universities. This emphasis on research is fueled by the institutions’ need to position themselves in the global terrain and also to be perceived as national centers of excellence. The ever-growing popularity of global ranking systems has pushed many global universities to emphasize research and publications (Ilieva et al., 2019). The universities’ ability to undertake rigorous scholarly research and engage in what is perceived as excellent publications are key criteria to positioning in global rankings. Unsurprisingly, faculty and staff in all the universities are expected to publish in perceived international high-ranking journals. Mostly all these are non-African journals. Due to lingering colonial legacies, it is erroneously but dominantly believed that Western journals are more rigorous and are a hub of legitimate knowledge production. By publishing in such journals, African scholarship is able to derive the needed validation from the West. This approach confirms what many scholars have argued about power relations and knowledge re/production regarding Western and non-Western countries, particularly ex-colonial countries. Academic research has historically privileged Western knowledge and value systems and institutions while marginalizing indigenous ones (Kovach, 2009: 29). Ironically, Ghanaian universities, similar to many universities in the sub-Saharan region, continue to perceive the West as superior and as gate keepers in determining “what does and does not count as knowledge” (Kovach, 2009: 29). The university should endeavor to forget and break free from dominant colonial thinking, knowledge, assumptions, and presumptions. Knowledge from the Global South does not need to be validated and approved by the North.

STAKEHOLDERS OF POLICYMAKING Brock-Utne (2004) has indicated that it is impossible to talk about policies in African higher education, without mentioning financial organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF, and their financial implications. International organizations have become key in

542

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

internationalization agendas of the universities. They provide funding for research, quality assurance, and student and staff mobility. For instance, the Board of the World Bank Group approved in March 2019 a total amount of $143 million in grants to assist some African countries including Ghana to boost quality and provision of applied research and higher education with a focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It also aims to encourage student and faculty exchanges so that among the countries many more disciplines are covered (website, World Bank). Other key stakeholders in the internationalization processes are the international associations the universities associate with, a key one of which is the Association of African Universities (AAU). The AAU is an international non-governmental organization set up by African universities to promote cooperation among themselves and with the international academic community. The core mandate of the AAU is to raise the quality of higher education in Africa and strengthen its contribution to Africa’s development by fostering collaboration among member institutions and to support teaching, learning, research, and community engagement; and facilitating critical reflection on, and consensus-building around, issues affecting higher education and the development of Africa. The Association promotes and facilitates networking, collaboration, and experience sharing in teaching, learning, and research. At the national level, the key stakeholder is the government, although as indicated earlier, the government is hardly involved in the internationalization agenda in the universities. However, the Ministry of Education makes wider polices including immigration and permit, which may affect the international policies of the universities. At the institutional levels, key stakeholders of policymaking are the Vice Chancellors and Rectors. Every decision taken at the school, faculty, department, as well as the international office, should be approved by these key officials. They work closely with the International Programmes Office (OPD).

Exploring the Opportunities As could be perceived from the discussion above, the universities are confronted with many challenges in their policy development; key among them being limited funding and colonial legacies. In spite of these challenges, there are what could be glimpses of hope to position the universities internationally. The next section explores the strengths and opportunities and subsequent recommendations.

TRUST IN THE GHANAIAN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEM All the international students interviewed indicated that they value Ghanaian university education as the universities offer better opportunities for students who want a university education. They also perceive Ghanaian universities as more stable in terms of strikes and demonstrations compared with institutions in their home country. Some responses indicated that international students from the Sub-region perceive the universities in Ghana, especially at University A, as providing international-standard education comparable to that in Europe and the United States but at a cheaper cost. The majority of international students interviewed also indicated their trust in Ghana’s political stability as a major reason for their choice of Ghana as a country in which to study. With the relative socio-economic and political stability in Ghana, the universities

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

543

have become popular places of choice for prospective students in especially the West African sub-region and Nigeria in particular. Ghana has never witnessed any national civil or political war and the country is relatively safe in terms of crime and financial stability. A BBC report confirmed that Ghana is one of the more stable nations in the region, with a good record of power changing hands peacefully. It is one of the continent’s fastest growing economies, and newest oil producer (BBC News, Africa, 2013).

Relative Infrastructural Development The majority of students also emphasized the relative infrastructural development at the national and institutional levels as a reason to pursue a program in Ghana. Many of them mentioned that social amenities, including electricity, comparatively are more stable than in their home countries. This assertion was not surprising, as recently the universities have made varied efforts to improve infrastructure on the various campuses. A visit to the universities reveals various new buildings, including lecture rooms and hostels. The universities have also boosted their internet connections and other teaching–learning facilities. Also improved are the environmental ambiances of the universities.

Re/Emerging Interest in African Knowledge Systems With the promotion and opportunities for intercultural learning in universities worldwide, many students from the Global North are attracted to African Studies and culture. Apart from the inter-cultural learning, this renewed interest could be attributed to increased global appreciation of the significance of knowledge generation and application (Sawyerr, 2004: 216). There has also been interest in student flow across borders because industrialized countries have recognized the need to equip their students with a global consciousness and with experience in other countries to enhance their competition in the global economy (Altbach, 2004). This renewed interest could enhance the international positioning of the universities.

NEGOTIATING THE TERRAIN A complex interplay of historical, economic, and social factors creates various challenges for the universities in Ghana, as they strive to position themselves internationally. However, with the strengths and opportunities, the universities could negotiate the terrain to make their contributions count in a globalized world. Based on the research, this section presents recommendations to enhance the internationalization process in the Ghanaian universities.

A Contextualised Approach to Internationalization The present global occurrences, including internationalization, have created new forms of power relations, which, I argue in support of de-colonial theorists among other writers, should be situated in the context of colonial empires (e.g., Harris, 2011). Unlike colonialism, contemporary happenings do not rely on fixed borders, and are managed through “hybrid identities, flexible hierarchies, and plural exchanges through modulating networks of command” (Hardt and Negri, 2000: xiii) but they, nevertheless recreate power inequalities and dependencies which decolonization processes seek to address (ibid.; Rizvi et al., 2006).

544

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

There is the need for the universities to reinterpret internationalization to reflect the Ghanaian context and reflect what they could distinctively offer. Such an approach will eliminate the inferiority and dependency approach that currently characterizes the approach to internationalization by the universities. Reinterpreting internationalization, I argue, should equally involve addressing the misrepresentation of Africa.

Ensuring a Decolonial Process The university should endeavor to forget and break free from dominant colonial thinking, knowledge, assumptions, and presumptions. Knowledge from the Global South does not need to be validated and approved by the North. As argued by Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018), contemporary global environmental and ecological crises demonstrate “that modernity has produced many modern problems for which it has no modern solutions” with its epistemic and systemic underlying: It would be naïve for peoples of the Global South in general, and Africa in particular, to continue looking to Europe and North America for usable knowledge, relevant ideas, critical theories and solutions to modern problems. This is why this book calls for intensification of African struggles for epistemic freedom as a way of rehabilitating the entire world from the current systemic and epistemic crisis. —Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018: 38 The question is, to what extent does the Global South subject knowledge from the Global North to validation? Mostly, this will be difficult since both formal and informal education systems in most African countries have been Eurocentric. Whatever the difficulty, it is imperative that African universities break away from scientific dependence and colonial mental captivity.

Addressing the Misrepresentation of African Universities As the universities strive to internationally position themselves, as they strive to follow international standards and homogeneity, it is important for them to make efforts to avoid and resist negative representations of Africa themselves through their actions and inactions. Though colonial subjects hardly follow colonial dictates without any form of resistance (Bhabha, 2004; Rizvi et al., 2006), the data indicates that, in the context of internationalization and the need for homogeneity, the Ghanaian universities hardly offer any resistance towards what is perceived as acceptable by the West. Often when they resist, the form of resistance is itself seeped in and inhibited by the language of the colonial “master” (Rizvi et al., 2006). Language is very significant “in the colonial formation of discursive and cultural practices” (Rizvi et al., 2006: 50). The universities should critically examine the type of discourses, language, and methods of teaching in the institutions, which would tend to perpetuate more cultural and psychological domination. Particular attention should be given to pictures and video clips used in PowerPoint presentations during teaching, and other presentations that could have an impact on students and other individuals. It becomes a serious issue when the universities, instead of working to eliminate the dominant sense of African inferiority from their students and populace, rather tend to exacerbate such feelings and thoughts. As universities, based on neoliberal thinking, and the need to follow international standards, emphasize foreign experts, foreign journals, and foreign degrees, they stamp the inferiority of Africa in the minds of students who

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

545

ultimately will send the same message to the public. This would be similar to the colonization and immediate post-independent period when African intellectuals insisted on Western forms of education as the best (Fanon, 2004). The eagerness to benchmark, I argue, rather serves as a gateway to emphasize and perpetuate negative thoughts about Africa to its own students and the populace at large.

Towards A Comprehensive National Policy on Internationalization To give a firm direction to a national internationalization policy, there is equally a need for a comprehensive national policy on higher education. Although some policy statements on internationalization have been highlighted in the Policy Document for Tertiary Education recently (2018), there is yet to be a national strategy and comprehensive national policies to spearhead the concept. Collaboration of the Universities and the Government First, there is the need for effective collaboration between the universities and the government. I argue that the internationalization process is so demanding and complex for the universities to deal with it alone. Second, the policy of internationalization which must be formulated and agreed upon by key stakeholders such as the Ministries, the regulatory bodies, the tertiary institutions, industries, and national research councils should be nonpartisan. There is also the need for collaborations of sister universities in Ghana. The universities should cooperate and work together to project themselves internationally. There is the need for synergy of strategies, efforts, and programs. Such collaborations would involve sharing instead of competing; they would also enhance the streamlining of activities to enhance equal participation and sharing of intellectual properties, especially with international collaborative partners. Funding A major need for enhancing the internationalization agenda is funding. Funding from the government would improve facilities of the universities, which in turn would help the universities to attract more international students. Attraction of students could be a major opportunity for addressing the perceived problem of over-dependence on government funding. More students and academics should also be supported to have further studies abroad to enhance their intercultural learning and appreciation. More academics should be sponsored to have international seminars, workshops, and conferences. Some academics have indicated that exposing academics internationally should be more than the short periods at conferences and workshops (Harris, 2008). In the Ghanaian context, I argue, these short exposures could be a major boost to the internationalization process. In countries where universities are largely dependent on public money, having no coherent direction for internationalization at the national level can limit the scope and undermine the effectiveness of internationalization strategies at the institutional level. There is a high correlation between national policy and highly developed internationalization (Altbach, 2016). Need to Emphasize Research When it comes to perceptions of success among HEIs, the rationale for internationalization seems to make a difference (Rumbley et al., 2019). Where an institution’s primary focus is understood to be on increasing the quality of research or improving the quality of education, faculty and staff will be more optimistic

546

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

about the future of internationalization at their HEI than when the primary focus is on financial gains. Though documents of the universities show an emphasis on research, in practice there are varied challenges. The limited funding of the universities has compelled many of the universities to remove institutional funding for research. Even where there are opportunities, the process of obtaining has been made very complicated, therefore discouraging many people from accessing such funds. The limited mobility of academics and travel restrictions equally impede the ability of faculty and staff to attract opportunities for networking and international collaborative research. In almost all the institutions, funding for traveling to conferences has been limited. Very few people derive the opportunities to travel for international programs. Moreover, due to limited funding, lecturers in many of the universities have been saddled with more courses for the universities to save money on adjunct lecturers. There is the need for universities to emphasize and show the commitment and political will to enhance research in their efforts at internationalization. The rationale for internationalization has been determined to be a significant determinant of the success of internationalization. Stakeholders are more optimistic about the success and future of institutional internationalization efforts if an institution’s primary focus is understood to be on increasing the quality of research or improving the quality of education. When employees are optimistic about the success and rationale of internationalization they will provide their support. However when an institution’s focal point is generating income, staff are less optimistic about the future of internationalization (Rumbley et al., 2019).

CONCLUSION Universities in the study, in their efforts at internationalization, have adopted some polices and strategic agendas. However, they are confronted with many challenges, including a sense of inferiority and dependency, North/South dichotomy and power imbalances, stigmatization, limited funding and research, and limited national policies on IHE. These challenges tend to limit their ability to achieve their desired goals of making a meaningful contribution internationally. Whilst they find it difficult to meet the standards of the dominant neoliberal Western discourse of internationalization, there is a challenge for universities to offer a different understanding and vision of internationalization. Nevertheless, the universities possess various strengths and opportunities, which, when utilized, I argue, will boost their international impact. These strengths include relative socio-economic and political stability of the country and emerging interest in indigenous knowledge systems. Among others points, this chapter argues for the universities to contextualize internationalization and strive to offer a distinctive knowledge systems from those of the West. The chapter also argues for the universities to enhance a decolonization process and to address the mis/representation of African universities. There is also the need for a national internationalization policy, which will augment the internationalization efforts of the universities.

REFERENCES Alemu, S. (2014). An appraisal of the internationalisation of higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. CEPS , 4(2): 71–90.

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

547

Allen M. (ed.) (2017). Confidentiality and anonymity of participants. In Allen, M. (ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. Altbach, P.G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain the top destination for foreign students? Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning, 36: (2): 18–25. Albach, P.G. (2007). Peripheries and centres: Research universities in developing countries. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2): 111–135. Altbach, P.G. (2016). Global perspectives on higher education. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press. BBC News Africa (2013). Ghana Profile. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldafrica-13434226 Barrett, A.M., Crossley, M., and Fon, T.P. (2014). North–South research partnerships in higher education: Perspectives from South and North. In Streitwieser, B. (ed.), Internationalization of Higher Education and Global Mobility. Providence, RI : Symposium Books. Bennett, M. (2012). A short conceptual history of intercultural learning in study abroad. In Hoffa, W. and Depaul, S. (eds), A History of U.S. Study Abroad: 1965–Present. Special publication of Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 419–449. Bhabha, H.K. (2004). The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge. Brock-Utne, B. (2004). Peace research with a diversity perspective: A look to Africa. International Journal of Peace, 9(2): 981. Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous Research Methodologies. Los Angeles, CA : Sage. Chilisa, B., Major, T.E., Gaotlhobogwe, M., and Mokgolodi, H. (2016). Decolonizing and indigenizing evaluation practice in Africa: Toward African relational evaluation approaches. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation / La Revue canadienne d’évaluation de programme, 30(3): 313–328, doi: 10.3138/cjpe.30.3.05 De Wit, H. (2010). Internationalisation of Higher Education in Europe and Its Assessment, Trends and Issues. NVAO Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie. De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., and Egron-Polak, E. (eds) (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels: European Parliament. Effah, P., and Senadza, B. (2008). Ghana. In Teferra, D., and Knight, J. (eds), Higher Education in Africa: The International Dimension. Boston, MA : Centre for international higher education, Boston College and Association of African universities. Fanon, F. (2004). The Wretched on Earth. Canada and New York: Grove Press. Girdwood, A. (1999). Tertiary Education Policy in Ghana: An Assessment, 1988–1998. Washington, DC : World Bank. Government of Ghana (GOG) (1991). White Paper on the Reforms of the Tertiary Education System. Accra. Government of Ghana (GOG) (2002). White Paper on the Report of the Education Reform Review Committee. Accra. Government of Ghana (GOG) (2007). White Paper on the Report of the Education Reform Review Committee. Accra. Gyamera, G.O. (2018). The internationalization agenda: A critical look at the conceptualization and rationalization of internationalization in public universities in Ghana. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 25(2): 112–131. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2018.1474729 Gyamera, G.O. (2015). The internationalization agenda: A critical examination of internationalization strategies in public universities in Ghana. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 25(2): 112–131. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000). Empire. New York: Harvard University Press.

548

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Harris, S. (2008). Internationalising the university. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 346–357. Harris, S. (2011). University in Translation: Internationalizing Higher Education. London: Continuum. Harris, S. (2007). The Governance of Education: How Neo-Liberalism Is Transforming Policy and Practice. London and New York: Continuum. Helms, R.M., and Rumbley, L.E. (2016). National policies for internationalization—Do they work? International Higher Education, 85: 10–12. Hong, M. (2018). A comparative study of the internationalization of higher education policy in Australia and China (2008–2015). Studies in Higher Education, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1553154 Ilieva, J. and Peak, M. (2016). The Shape of Global Higher Education: National Policies Framework for International Engagement: Emerging Themes. British Council. Ilieva, J., Tsiligiris, V. and P. Killingley, P. (2019). The Shape of Global Higher Education: International Comparisons with Europe. British Council. Jibeen, T., Masha, T., and Khan, A. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: Potential benefits and costs. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 4(4): 196–199. Jowi, O., Knight, J., and Sehoole, C. (eds) (2013). Internationalization of African Higher Education: Status, challenges and issues. In Sehoole, C. and Knight, J. (eds), Internationalization of African Higher Education: Towards Achieving the MDGs. Rotterdam/ Boston/Taipei: Sense. Knight, J. (2004). Internationlization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Knight J. (2008). Higher Education In Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers/Centre for International Higher Education. Knight, J. (2012). Student mobility and internationalization: Trends and tribulations. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1): 20–33. Knight, J. (2014). Three generations of cross border higher education: New developments, issues and challenges. In Streitwieser, B. (ed.), Internationalization of Higher Education and Global Mobility. Oxford: Symposium, pp. 43–58. Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations and Contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lulat, Y.G.M. (2005). A History of African Higher Education from Antiquity to the Present: A Critical Synthesis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing. Manuh, T., Gariba, S., and Budu, J. (2007), Change and Transformation in Ghana’s Publicly Funded Universities: A Study of Experiences, Lessons and Opportunities. Accra: Woeli Publishing Services. Mbembe, A.J. (2016). Decolonizing the university: New directions. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, (15)1: 29–45. Ministry of Education (2018). Tertiary education policy document. Ghana: MoE. Mok, K.H. (2012). Global aspirations and strategizing for world-class status: New modes of higher-education governance and the emergence of regulatory regionalism in East Asia. In Nelson, A.R., and Ian, P.W. (eds), The Global University: Past, Present and Future Perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Naidoo, R. (2010). Repositioning higher education as a global commodity: Opportunities and challenges for future sociology of education work. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(2): 249–259.

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS

549

National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) (2012). 2012 Budget Report. Ghana: NCTE . National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) (2016). 2016 Budget Report. Ghana: NCTE . National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) (2017). 2017 Budget Report. Ghana: NCTE . National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) (2018). 2018 Budget Report. Ghana: NCTE . Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2018). Epistemic Freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and Decolonization. Routledge: New York. Ota, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Global trends and Japan’s challenges. Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, 12: 91–105. Richters, E., and Teichler, U. (2006). Student mobility data: Current methodological issues and future prospects. In Kelo, M., Teichler, U., and Wachter, B. (eds), Eurodata: Student Mobility in European Higher Education. Bonn: Lemmens Verlag, pp. 78–95. Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., and Lavia, J. (2006). Postcolonialism and education: Negotiating a contested terrain. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 14(3): 249–262. Rumbley, L.E., Hudson, R., and Sandström, A. (2019). Successful internationalization: European insights. International Higher Education, 98: 10–12. Santos B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Boulder, CO : Paradigm. Sawyerr, A. (2004). African universities and the challenge of research capacity development. JHEA/RESA , 2(1): 211–240. Tamtik, M. (2018). Who governs the internationalization of higher education? A comparative analysis of macroregional policies in Canada and the European Union. Comparative and International Education / Éducation Comparée et Internationale, 46: 1. Teferra, D., and Altbach, P.G. (2004). African higher education: Challenges for the 21st century. Higher Education, 47: 21–30. Times Higher Education (2019). The world university rankings: University of Ghana. https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/university-ghana University of Oxford (2015). International Trends in Higher Education. https://www.ox.ac.uk/ sites/files/oxford/International%20Trends%20in%20Higher%20Education%202015.pdf

CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE

Accounting for Internationalization in Kenya’s Higher Education System IBRAHIM OGACHI OANDA

INTRODUCTION Higher education institutions in Africa continue to face challenges that limit their capacities to compete with institutions in the developed countries, and even a majority of the institutions in some of the developing countries such as those of the ASEAN region. Over the last three decades, higher education institutions, especially in Africa, have been urged to embrace internationalization as the strategy to overcome the challenges they face (International Association of Universities, IAU, 2003; Sehoole and Knight, 2013; Zeleza, 2012). Promoted as an altruistic process, some of the benefits of internationalization are said to include: academic practices that promote increased institutional collaboration; increased student enrollment as a consequence of improved academic program quality and international student recruitment; better faculty quality and increase in knowledge outputs resulting from research and scholarly collaborations; and a two-way intercultural enrichment resulting from institutional-level student and staff diversity and curriculum internationalization (Altbach and Knight, 2007; Stromquist, 2007). For African universities, the possibility that internationalization would result in the attraction of external funding and the strengthening of their capacities for research and knowledge generation features most in the internationalization plans of most institutions. The extent to which the promises of internationalization are being realized in African higher education institutions however remains unexamined. Granted that higher education institutions and enrollments have been on the rise throughout the continent over the last two decades; no reasonable explanation has been documented that links these developments to the various internationalization strategies that the institutions have implemented. It would seem that the struggle by the institutions to appear to be “internationalizing” has diverted resources and time that the institutions would otherwise have devoted to self-regeneration. This chapter examines these contrasting positions by analyzing some developments in Kenya’s higher education system.

550

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

551

Accounting for possible outcomes from the internalization process, or lack of them, is important in several respects. First is the emerging resistance to globalization from the West, which is presenting new hurdles to student, staff, and institutional mobility. Developing countries such as Kenya saw student and institutional mobility as one of the best means through which their academic and cultural practices would be internationalized. Questioning and resisting globalization as a liberal project negates the claims of internationalization as the higher education face of globalization. By analyzing ongoing institutional practices, it is possible to discern the extent to which the process has been one sided—an imposed external practice that corrodes the capacity of national level institutions to develop the kind of capacities the process aims to help develop. The second reason has to do with the emergence of a multi-polar dimension of internationalization and the possibilities for a post-internationalization phase of higher education engagements and what this would mean to universities in developing countries such as Kenya. Until recently, internationalization has carried a “Western face,” tied to the colonial origins and practices in higher education and the post-war insertion of American higher education into these international higher education dynamics. But China has emerged as a force in global higher education, attracting foreign students and using its Confucius institutes as a soft strategy to influence internationalization practices in African countries such as Kenya. The confluence of Western, Eastern, and maybe Southern practices in single institutions in developing countries such as Kenya is likely to present new evidence of the extent that internationalization practices enhance or impede academic plans in national institutions. Lastly, as was the case in the 1990s, most universities in Africa are again undergoing funding constraints after a period of expansion. Internal funding deficits usually precipitate one-sided higher education internationalization partnerships where external entities dominate. This chapter will examine this emerging scenario in the Kenyan case, accounting for what players have come in and what the implications are to internal institutional academic plans.

METHODOLOGY AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMING Data for this chapter are drawn from an analysis of primary source documents related to the institutions’ internationalization strategies, complemented with a review of secondary sources. The primary sources will include institutional accounts on specific internationalization strategies and activities, and how the institutional players gauge the outcomes of such activities. A number of institutions have these strategies on their institutional websites together with an account of ongoing activities. Complementing secondary sources will include an analysis of historical and current studies of internationalization trends. Higher education institutions in the developing countries have been encouraged to embrace internationalization in the last three decades. In the early 1990s, the incentives were articulated in terms of the needs of the higher education institutions to generate resources, given the ravages wrought on the institutions by the structural adjustment programs of the 1980s. The post-2000 pressures have been framed in terms of making the institutions strong conduits for “knowledge economies” flowing from more developed countries and using various channels of globalization as mechanisms of diffusion and assimilation. Importantly, and with regard to benefiting from the global knowledge economies, the promises of internationalization to strengthen the knowledge generation and research capacities of universities in developing countries have been persuasive, though metrics for research outputs have not markedly changed.

552

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Strictly speaking, higher education institutions in the developing countries are products not of internationalization, but of institutional imposition from superior economies. In “Imperial Echoes,” Pietsch (2012) recalls how higher education internationalization has traveled from the nineteenth century as part of the imperil project, with each subsequent phase brewing discontent among those it was intended to “benefit.” Pietsch sees the emerging twenty-first century trends in internationalization of higher education as promoted to portend the kind of contradictions the process has historically triggered: imperial imposition at the same time as education; exclusion and access; discontentment as well as satisfaction (Pietsch, 2012). The “inter” in internationalization does not therefore signify an equal relationship between higher education institutions of different countries. It refers to the common historical traditions and connections that have linked higher education institutions across international boundaries through various knowledge networks (Altbach, 1989). Nor should there be an expectation that, as promoted, internationalization seeks to promote higher education institutions in developing countries to the same level of “international” status as those institutions of developed countries. It would be true, as Pietsch has averred, that some contradictory outcomes from the process end up being positive, though not intended. What is worrisome is that such positive outcomes do not seem to emerge from circumstances that higher education institutions in developing countries have control over and therefore can factor in their long-term development plans. Reflecting on the fate of the state in Africa after the likely collapse of Liberal Internationalism, Malcolmson (2018) argues that states in Africa have usually defined themselves with reference to foreign norms shaped and imposed under colonialism and refined in the postcolonial, international-community dispensation. In the absence of an agreed Western Internationalism, Malcolmson anticipates a proliferation of different external actors driven by national and geopolitical interests in the continent’s affairs in ways that will have negative effects on all aspects of policy. These reflections do amplify the situation that higher education in Africa is facing in the context of internationalization. Unlike the historical phase of higher education internationalization that was propelled by the interests and ideologies of colonial governments, current trends in internationalization are multiple and sometimes outside the control of a single government policy, as it was during the colonial period. China, a new entrant, has become a major player in shaping the direction of internationalization, but without necessarily subscribing to any norms. The multipolar world of internationalization does not include just countries and governments, but also strong higher education common areas pursuing common interests, private companies in search of opportunities to offer virtual higher education spaces, private research corporations, and private universities. This makes for a complex mix from where higher education institutions in Africa are supposed to make choices, but in the absence of clear national level strategies and political steering. It is not conceivable that higher education systems of developed countries can operate and assume mutually interdependent relationships of equity and reciprocity with those of developing countries. Given the low capacity of higher education systems in developing countries, the literature on internationalization does suggest that the first step should be to support higher education in developing countries to attain internationalization competencies. This would commence with influencing: practices at the level of the classroom; the higher education institutions through change in leadership and management practices; and the nation states where the institutions are anchored, with the result of finally thrusting the institutions into the global level (Altbach, 2015;

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

553

Onana, Oyewole, Teferra, Beneitone, González, and Wagenaar, 2014). The benevolence that has characterized promotion of internationalization in terms of mutual educational benefits and intercultural cooperation over the last two decades has however ebbed. In its place, commercial interests bent to use internationalization as a tool for political and social soft power are emerging as strong motivations, with the national political leadership of developed countries taking a leadership role in designing internationalization strategies (Castiello-Gutierrez, 2019; Gunn and Mintron, 2017). The disquiet triggered by these trends, especially within developing countries, has led to attempts to assuage their concerns regarding the likely adverse implications of internationalization by invoking the principles of ethical internationalization (IAU, 2012; Stein, Andreotti, and Susa, 2019; Weimer, 2018). Such principles have required approaches to internationalization that promote inclusive and sustainable international mobility experiences, ethical and reciprocal research and teaching partnerships, curriculum internationalization premised on global justice, and long-term institutional commitments to internationalize and deliberate efforts on the part of developed higher education systems to improve the capacity in less developed systems (Stein et al., 2019; Weimer, 2018). But adherence to these principles is limited by the increased commercial consideration of higher education as an export commodity and internationalization as the strategy to optimize this business value of higher education for developed countries (see for example, Britain and Northern Ireland, International Education strategy, 2019). Forecasts of Africa’s youth bulge to 2050 and the inability of African countries to meet the youth’s higher education needs strongly emerge in the literature as projections around which developed countries are designing their commercially oriented higher education internationalization strategies (Kritz, 2018; Britain and Northern Ireland, International Education strategy, 2019; Caerus Capital, 2018; King, 2014). China, a new entrant, has for example sought to strengthen ties to future African elites by attracting African students to China through various schemes, thus, increasing the enrollment of African students in China by 3,335 percent between 2003 and 2016, from 1,793 to 61,594 students (Trines, 2019). Kenya alone had 2,400 students studying in China by 2018 (ibid.). But the focus on mobile students, especially those from Africa, is happening at a time when the rise of “Nationalisms,” especially among developed countries (Canada, the United States, the UK, and Australia), is limiting the number of students granted visas to go and study in these countries. Generally, student mobility from lower incomes countries tends towards high income countries, which are also trying to impose stricter migration regulations. Data from Canada, for example shows that between January and May 2019, 75 percent of students from Africa who applied for visas to study in Canada were refused (Toughill, 2019). The above scenario then presents a contradiction regarding the two ambitions on the part of developed countries and how they would be reconciled: the need to improve national higher education systems by tapping into mobile students especially from different countries, and the political imperatives of the emerging nationalisms that seek to curb the rates of immigration to developed countries. One way would be to intensify transnational approaches by moving campuses and programs, either physically or virtually, to less developed countries. This is already happening and may intensify in scale, a trend that a number of American universities are spearheading across Africa (Dahir, 2019). The question is what this form of higher education internationalization will mean for struggling higher education institutions on the continent. Transnational education offerings on their own cannot redress demand for higher education in Africa. A number

554

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

of public universities do this significantly and the contribution of transnational programs would only be appreciated in terms of the extent they contribute to increase and strengthen local capacities, not to contribute to their erosion. The other limitation of transnational programs would be in their focus. The need for higher education across the African continent tends towards low-cost, inclusive, publicly subsidized higher education systems. Transnational programs, on the other hand, tend to be selective, high-cost exclusive systems. They tend to serve specific niches, for example in offering executive education or regular undergraduate programs that are highly costed. How then can the impact of the different aspects of internationalization implemented in African higher education institutions be gauged? Are they strengthening or eroding the capacity of higher education institutions in Africa to develop and serve the needs of their societies in the long term? Two indicators are repeatedly suggestive in the literature as ways in which the impact of internationalization on local higher education institutions, especially in Africa, would be gauged (UNESCO, 2019; Alemu, 2014; Harle, 2013). One is by examining those aspects of internationalization that contribute to building local capacity, for example, evidence that aspects of internationalization adopted at the local levels have led to strengthening of teaching and research capacities. The desire to strengthen research and teaching capacities repeatedly appears in the internationalization strategies of most African universities. It is therefore important to gauge how this is being realized at the level of individual institutions. The second level of indicators is to look at those aspects that are likely to limit the capacity of local institutions to recreate conditions for academic excellence in a sustainable way. Increased establishment of branch campuses of foreign universities that have better reputations has the potential to disadvantage national higher education institutions especially in terms of student enrollments and the tuition revenues that accrue from such enrollment growth. Granted that most higher education institutions in Africa have low student capacity, such capacity is eroded not enhanced if it is subjected to competition with established and reputable institutions. Increasingly, as national level strategies focus on the contribution of internationalization to economic growth and national prosperity, recruitment of skilled migrants for labor shortages, international student recruitment, institutional level branding, and reputation emerge as trends catalyzing the process of internationalization (Weimer, 2017). Higher education institutions in Africa lack in either of these characteristics. Internationalization strategies are not backed by national level political steering but remain more articulated at the level of institutions (Oanda, 2016). Institutional offices for internationalization are under-resourced and most universities across the continent do not have the “brand” to attract a high number of students, especially from developed countries. In the following section, the policy context around which internationalization of higher education is taking place in Kenya is discussed, before an analysis is made of what the likely implications have been so far.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KENYA: THE POLICY CONTEXT The Higher Education (HE) sector in Kenya includes both public and private level university institutions and various, largely public, middle-level technical and vocational technical colleges (TIVET). Institutional expansion and internationalization strategies

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

555

are however limited to the public and private universities. Public universities dominate in terms of institutional infrastructure and number of students enrolled. In terms of institutional growth and diversification, the number of public universities increased from one in 1970 to seven in 2007, and to thirty-one public universities (with six constituent colleges and 111 public university campuses), compared with thirty-two private universities by 2018 (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, KNBS, 2019). In terms of student enrollment, public universities enrolled 426,965 (83 percent) students (40 percent female), while private universities enrolled 86,217 (45.7 percent female) by 2018 (Republic of Kenya, 2019). The competition for students between public and private universities drives institutions to engage in different internationalization strategies to enhance their reputations. These have included entering into joint degree arrangements with foreign universities, as well as introducing different international programs to attract foreign students. Analysis of policy documents developed over the last two decades on higher education in Kenya does not give a sense that the policies address the emerging complexity in internationalization beyond the traditional partnerships. A task force formed in 2007 to design Kenya’s higher education strategy to 2015 did recommend strong university linkages and partnerships focused on enhancing mutual learning, research, and innovation (Wandiga, 2007). As the task force report observed, most of the collaboration that existed between Kenyan universities and other international universities was not structured and was particularly weak in the area of Intellectual Property Rights due to lack of comprehensive national and institutional level policies (ibid.). Regional collaboration between universities in the context of the Inter-University Council of East Africa (IUCEA) do exist. But this is limited to student and faculty exchanges as well as joint research projects. What is lacking in Kenya is a nuanced articulation of internationalization as a project steered by the state, which focuses on supporting higher education institutions to benefit from the process. The policy framework for university education (Republic of Kenya, 2012a), developed in the context of Kenya’s new Constitution in 2010, and a new Universities’ Act (Republic of Kenya, 2012b) do not mention “internationalization” with regard to the various policy proposals made to improve university education and realign it to national development goals. The policy only affirms that universities will be encouraged to increase their research grant portfolios by attracting increased funding from Government, the private sector, development partners, and international organizations (Republic of Kenya, 2012a: 21). Nor does the Commission for University Education (CUE), the overall regulator for higher education institutions in Kenya, provide much direction to steer the quality and direction of internationalization activities in the institutions for the mutual benefit of the institutions and the country. In its 2014– 2018 strategic plan, CUE does note the difficult environment higher education institutions in Kenya are operating in, especially within the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO), General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which treats education as a tradable service and aims at liberalizing international access to the university (CUE, 2014a). But beyond this observation, the strategy does not provide direction nor structural support to aid universities in engaging with these threats as part of the institutional level internationalization strategies. With no clear national level internationalization policies, each university, public and private have had to design individual institutional level strategies that do not exactly speak to each other in order to achieve a common articulated objective. Both the internationalization strategies and the mission statements speak to world class ambitions

556

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and presuppose vigorous activities within the institutions to benchmark themselves against best practices and attempts to contribute to the process of internationalization to make it truly a two-way process. The strategies also speak to the desire of the institutions to use the strategies as resource mobilization vehicles. Competition between the institutions to attract national and regional students and focus on attracting a small group of external partners therefore manifest in the institutional strategies. In the absence of national policy stewardship, and given the weak capacities in the institutions, external partners have been active in supporting the design and shaping of institutional internationalization strategies in Kenya, and indeed in most of Africa. But these are the very entities whose ambitions and objectives in African higher education, national and institutional level internationalization strategies are supposed to check. Universities UK, has, for example, taken a lead in engaging Kenyan universities in the nature and shape of collaboration between universities in the two countries post-Brexit (Grubb, 2019). The Germany Academic Exchange Program (DAAD) has helped design quality assurance systems for universities in Kenya as well as supported capacity for quality oversight with the Commission for university education. DAAD also supports a number of postgraduate programs, especially through in-country and overseas scholarships for doctoral students. The intra-Africa academic mobility scheme which supports mobility of students and academics within Africa to improve their skills and competencies is support that the European Union has extended to African universities through the African Union Commission and is administered through the European Union’s Education, Audio-visual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). These are just a few illustrations to show the extent to which partners from the developed countries have an upper hand in determining the design and content of internationalization policies and strategies for higher education institutions in Kenya, and indeed in Africa. The processes through which internationalization strategies and activities are designed for Kenya, and indeed for Africa, constitute a case whereby an “adversary” designs for the competitor the rules and procedures through which the game will be regulated. At the level of individual institutions, analysis of the strategic plans and missions articulated as part of their international programs shows that all universities have explicit reference to internationalization as an institutional strategy. All the universities also do have explicit reference to international collaboration and engaging in university–industry linkages at a national and international level. The strategies do not look much different in terms of their framing and the nuances they lack in terms of what the institutions want to achieve from internationalization other than attracting foreign students; an area in which they are not strong. The policies also do not show any serious reflection of what the institution needs to do to make their intellectual products attractive to the international higher education space or a realistic assessment of their actual capacity to implement some of the strategies. In practice, all the institutions have some activities that focus on research support and international exchange of staff and students. For example, the University of Nairobi, the oldest and largest public university in the country based on student numbers and academic programs, established the Centre for International Programs and Links (CIPL) in 2001. The mandate of the center is to initiate and facilitate international programs and links, staff and student exchanges and mobility, and collaborative research projects and networking. According to information on the center’s website, the university had over 300 active collaborations and international partnerships, besides hosting over 1,000 international students from over 50 countries among a population of about 70,000

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

557

undergraduate students by 2018 (CIPL, 2018). Information contained in the university’s documentation shows that the focus of the partnerships includes student/faculty exchange, joint research projects, and equipment/technology transfer, among other activities. The data show that 66 percent of the partnerships are with European and North American countries (University of Nairobi, 2013b) and the partnerships are a source of research funds and advanced facilities for research. The partnerships are more in the College of Health Sciences with 38 (32 percent) of research issues being funded by such partnerships from 2010–2015, focusing on health-related topics (University of Nairobi, 2012). At Kenyatta university, about 230 international collaborations are listed on the center’s website as active (Kenyatta University, CIPL, 2019). About 30 percent of the collaborations are with higher education institutions in North America and Asia (China and Korea). The collaborations mainly focus on faculty and student exchanges, joint research and teaching, international conferences and academic meetings, among others. The center coordinates staff and student exchange, although no information is provided regarding the number of staff and students who have been involved and the direction of exchange. At Moi University, institutional internationalization activities are coordinated by the international programs office (IPO). Information gleaned from the IPO website shows that the university has various partnerships, especially with universities in the United States. The AMPATH (Academic model providing access to healthcare) program alone brings together a consortium of twenty-one US universities that partner with the university in the area of health sciences. In Canada, Moi University has collaborations with Universities of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario, Nipissing, and Kwantlen, amongst others. The engagements are in research, capacity building, and academic exchanges. But the university, despite having an institutional linkages office, does not have specific policies targeting utilizing African academic in the diaspora. The other aspects coordinated by the IPO relate to staff exchanges and mobility. Scholarly exchange programs are recognized as a key component of internationalization and provide unique opportunities for local staff to participate in activities of partner overseas institutions for specified periods. IPO recognizes that lack of funding mechanisms is a clear hindrance to local staff wishing to participate in international mobility. Working in collaboration with other relevant units of the university and external donor agencies, the IPO is exploring avenues of setting up sustainable funding mechanism (endowment fund) for international staff mobility. The Scholarly Exchange Programme coordinated by the IPO incorporates special study programs such as study leave and sabbaticals. IPO is fully equipped with information regarding departmental/faculty needs for scholar support and liaises with relevant university organs to source for the same from international partner institutions. Table 33.1 is a summary of the internationalization vision and strategies of four large public universities in Kenya. The vision and strategies have been extracted from current strategic plans of the institutions either at the institution or program level or both. The idea is to show the extent of commonality in visions and strategies of the institutions. The names of the institutions have been anonymized though the documents from which the information has been extracted are available online. Note the singular focus of the strategies of the institutions to make conditions better to attract international students and staff but no mention of any strategy to ensure a complementary reverse process is realized. Beyond the strategies, a search of primary sources has not yielded any evidence of any institutional reports that document what the outcomes of the internationalization

558

TABLE 33.1 Summary of internationalization vision and strategies of four large public universities in Kenya University Vision statement

Strategies for internationalization

A

– A world-class university committed to scholarly excellence; – A leading integrative center that enhances the university’s international, research, academic, and cultural interactions.

Promote and increase internationalization of the university: • Develop and implement support systems for international students; • Market university programs in selected international markets; • Reposition CIPL* to significantly attract more international students; • Monitor and report regularly completion rates for international students; • Implement mechanisms to attract international academic staff.

B

– A world-class university in socio-economic and technological advancements.

Provide quality university education and training, and establish mutually beneficial linkages and collaboration through: • Developing market-driven programs; • Creating a distinctive undergraduate experience; • Producing globally competitive graduates; • Building capacity at university; • Providing exposure to both students and staff.

C

– To be a dynamic, an inclusive and a competitive center of excellence in teaching, learning, research, and service to humanity. – A center of excellence in internationalization of the university.

• • • •

D

– To enable the university to achieve the objective of being world class in nurturing innovation and talent in Science, Technology, and Development. – To provide a complete service to international students and staff, and to provide the necessary strategic support to academic structures to enable the internationalization of the institution in its totality; to create a home away from home for international students

• Promote and market academic programs of the university in accurate terms relative to quality, standing, and availability and in accordance with the relevant regulations of the university. • Provide educational advisory services to local and international students seeking admission at the university (international students) and in universities outside Kenya (local students). • Receive and facilitate the processing of international applications in accordance with the university regulations to ensure that the academic standards of the university are upheld. • Provide appropriate support services to international students and staff while in residence at the university. • Serve as a Resource Center for international education at the university with particular emphasis on information requirements by international students and staff. • Facilitate, nurture, and sustain links between the university and other universities in liaison with relevant university departments.

*Centre for International Programs.

Develop and run tailor-made international programs. Create a vibrant and supportive environment for all international staff and students. Enhance the university profile through local and international collaborations. Ensure adequate resources for effective and efficient implementation of services.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

559

strategies have been to the institutions. A number of universities have in their strategic plans and records of research partnerships, but there is no indication if the partnerships accrued from any specific internationalization strategy pursued or are part of the traditional partnerships that are renewed from time to time. There is however an indication of partnerships existing in research and staff exchange that have been initiated by the external partners as part of the external partners’ internationalization strategy. This means that Kenyan universities have been reactive and on the receiving end, being forced to take what is available even when it does not relate to any specific aspect of their internationalization strategy. In the subsequent sections of the chapter, an analysis is made of changes, if any, that have taken place in the universities on three indicators over the last two decades. The indicators are outputs in research and innovation, the level and quality of the academic staff, and the level and quality of doctoral training. The three indicators have been selected as they are most cited in the strategic plans of the institutions with respect to internationalization choices. The need to improve the quality of teaching and research rank highly as considerations for internationalization.

ACADEMIC RESEARCH, INNOVATION, AND PUBLICATION TRENDS Three factors make it difficult to track the flow of funds to universities in Kenya that are a consequence of the internationalization strategies and partnerships the institutions have entered into in the recent past. One is the fact that growth of universities in Kenya has always been accompanied by international partnerships to support research and faculty development. Some of the partnerships have stayed and grown along with the institutions, especially those associated with support to specific programs that external partners have sustained interest in. The partnership between Moi University, School of Medicine and Indiana University dates from 1989, long before Moi University established its international programs’ office. It is therefore a little complicated to account for some of the activities and outcomes to recent strategies that institutions have designed in the context of internationalization. The second reason is the lack of readily available data and program reports at the institutions or on their websites that assign outcomes to specific partnerships. Institutional reports often itemize the number of partnerships but not the specific activities the partnerships are supporting. Where activities are reported, data is not available to show what success has been realized at the institutional level resulting from the partnerships. Last is the fact that some partnerships do not come directly to the universities. Government agencies such as the National Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) and the National Research Fund (NRF) mobilize funding for research from external partners and distribute it to universities and other research institutions. In some instances external partners that give funding to universities also support both NACOSTI and NRF. But funding from NACOSTI and NRF going to universities is likely to be captured as support from the Kenya government even when the two institutions have acted as conduits of funds from donors to universities. UNESCO data (UIS, 2010), the latest year for which such comprehensive data is available, tracking Gross expenditure on Research and Development (GERD), shows that, by 2010, 4.3 percent, 26.0 percent, 19.0 percent, 3.5 percent, and 47.1 percent of

560

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

funding for research and development in Kenya came from Business Enterprises, Government, Higher Education, Private-nonprofit sector, and the rest of the world respectively. The rest of the world here refers to resources coming from external partners to support research and development. If coupled with the fact that some of the business enterprises and private non-profit sector will be multinationals operating within Kenya or research institutions located in Kenya, but getting external funding, then the percentage of resources that universities are accessing to boost their research and innovation profiles as a consequence of external partnerships would be upwards of 60 percent. The African Economic Research Consortium located in Kenya is one such private nonprofit organization that mobilizes funds from international partners and distributes to universities. A recent study has established that 52.85 percent of funding universities accessed in Kenya for research and development accrued from donors and business enterprises and non-governmental organizations (CPS International, 2018). It would then be argued that internationalization of higher education, whether analyzed from historical partnerships that have persisted over time or recent partnerships that have come into existence as universities in Kenya pursue internationalization strategies, does account for a large portion of the funding universities have for research and development activities. What is not clear is how the universities are engaging in such a relationship for mutual benefit given the lack of a clear focused internationalization strategy at the national level. The Kenya Ministry of Education, in its National Strategy for Research, 2018–2022 (Republic of Kenya, 2019) has outlined research priorities to guide research institutions, universities, and non-governmental institutions. It is however the responsibility of the institutions, universities in particular, to balance between their own interest, the focus of the government agenda in terms of research and innovation, and the interests of external partners. Some of the partners funding aspects of higher education development in Kenya which may have an implication on the research undertaken in the institutions are shown in Table 33.2. Estimating total research outputs and outcomes of external support as a consequence of internationalization is rather tricky for reasons that have been discussed, foremost that institutions do not often track research outputs to funding sources. One has to glean some indication from bits of information provided by individual universities in their annual reports. But even this is not comprehensive as it will include cases of academics who have received a research grant from the university or those whose external research funds are channeled through the universities. Money voted by the institutions from their internal revenues averages 1 percent, barely enough to have any impact. It would therefore be that there are researchers in the universities whose research output is not captured in the institutions if sources of funding are external and not captured in the university system, or such research output is counted as a property of the funding agencies. Data from the University of Nairobi dated 2013 indicate that the number of research publications by staff increased from 1,288 titles in the 2009/10 academic year to 1,559 titles in the 2011/2012 academic year (University of Nairobi, 2013c). With an academic staff component of 1,610, this translated to about 0.9 percent research output per academic staff member per year. Records from the research division of the university showed 118 research projects being undertaken by academics from the University of Nairobi and other external partners for the period 2010–2015 (University of Nairobi, 2015). Some of the partners providing funding for research include: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Grand Challenges Canada; International Science Program, Uppsala

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

561

TABLE 33.2 Support from development partners to university education in Kenya, 2014 University

Nature of project support

Proposed amount

Partners

Kenyatta University

Construction of a teaching and referral hospital

744,560 RMB/ yuan

GOK and Government of China

Multimedia University

Establishment of an internet center

100 computers and video conferencing facilities

Republic of Korea and Multimedia University

Pan-African University Institute for Basic Sciences, Engineering and Technology at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology

Establishment of the Pan-African University Institute

USD 54 million

AfDB, GOK, African Union Commission, China, Japan/JICA

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology

Establishment of Botanical Garden

USD 27.20 million (USD 18.5 million support sought from China)

GOK, China through the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Wuhan Botanical Gardens

Egerton University

Agricultural research

Ksh 150 million

USAID

University of Nairobi

University development

Ksh 22.5 million

UNICEF

Source: MOEST Directorate of Higher Education 2014.

University; Pfizer Inc. USA; Strengthening Pharmaceutical Systems (SPS); Management Science for Health Programme (MSH); International Development Research Centre; President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through CDC; Africa Development Bank; and Royal Research Fund (RRF), University of Washington. At Kenyatta university, research publications by academics increased from 230 in 2012 to 660 in 2014 (Gravenier, 2014). With an academic staff component of 961, this translated to a research output of 0.6 percent per academic member of staff in 2014. Another dimension to research output in Kenya is that it is not entirely limited to universities. Kenya boasts of a number of research institutions. Most of the research institutes focus on science and technology, and agriculture and health sciences. Most of the researchers in the research institutions are academics based in the universities. The research institutions also provide training infrastructure for PhD students and postdoctoral work. The totality of the research output by Kenyan academics should therefore be gauged by looking holistically at the research production in the universities, in the research institutions and research output through NACOSTI. Data by the African Innovation Outlook II, show that Kenya’s gross domestic expenditure was 0.98 percent by 2010 compared with the world average of 1.77 percent

562

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

expenditure on research (AIO, 2014). On the other hand, Kenya increased its GERD from 277.8 PPP$ in 2007/08 to 652.0 PPP$ in 2010/11, resulting in its GERD/GPD ratio doubling from 0.48 percent to 0.98 percent (AIO, 2014). External partnerships financed 47.1 percent of this research, with government contributing 26 percent, higher education institutions contributing 19 percent, and business 4.3 percent to this research output. Of the Kenyan government’s contribution to research output, 50 percent was committed to basic research (AIO, 2014). The heavy dependence by universities and research institutions in Kenya on external partners for research would have implications on the direction of such research. In terms of the percentage of academics in the universities engaged in research and development, the AIO (2014) shows that 56.6 percent of the researchers were based in the universities. However out of a total research personnel component of 61,964, only 1.3 percent (826) had doctoral level education by 2010, and their research concentration was mainly in the natural sciences (3.7 percent); Engineering and Technology (13.7 percent); Medical and Health Sciences (25.5 percent); Agricultural Sciences (40.5 percent); Social Sciences (9.4 percent); and Humanities (7.2 percent) (AIO, 2014). The SCImago Journal and Country Rank, a portal that includes the journals and country scientific indicators developed from the information contained in the Scopus database, has placed Kenya as 7 in Africa and 67 worldwide in terms of research publications and H-index between 1996 and 2018. The country registered 31,548 citable documents, with an average of 18.59 citations per document and an H-index of 233 (SCImago Journal and Country Rank, 2018). Analysis from SCOPUS data shows that between 2000 and 2010 the medical sciences, agriculture, and biological sciences commanded about 77 percent (8,108 papers) of all publications produced in Kenya. The social sciences and economics contributed 13 percent (1356) while all other disciplines combined together shared the remaining 11 percent (1,116) of the total knowledge production (INASP, 2012). Information provided by the various universities online is not sufficient to allow conclusions to be drawn on whether aspects of internationalization contribute to the rise of publication volumes by academics in Kenya. It is also not possible to draw conclusions on whether academics in Kenyan universities are accessing publication outlets and getting their work better disseminated to a global audience in ways that would not have been possible were the institutions not adopted internationalization strategies. But a general increase in publication volumes is reported across the institutions. At Kenyatta University, for example, the number of research publications rose from 230 in 2012 to 660 in 2014 (Gravenier, 2014). With an academic staff component of 961 in 2014, this translated to an average of about 0.7 percent publications per member of staff. At the University of Nairobi, a summary on publications and sources of support contained in the university’s 2013–2018 strategic plan does suggest that partnerships that have accrued from internationalization strategies have contributed to the increase in research publications. The highest impact based on the number of activities’ external grants supported during that period was conference presentations, publications based on research, and consultancies, in that order. This information is summarized in Table 33.3. The last dimension that should be considered is the contribution of internationalization related support to strengthening universities as sources of innovation. The Kenyan part of the African Science and technology indicators innovation Survey 2008–2011 (ASTII, 2011) revealed that most innovation-active firms (95.7 percent) reported enterprises in

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

563

TABLE 33.3 University of Nairobi; research, publication and production status 2007/08–2011/12 Item External Grants (KSH)

2007/08 594,274,975

UON press publications

2008/09

–

Plant varieties

–

Copyrights

–

Trademarks

–

Strategic collaborations

19 –

6 –

12 –

–

2011/12

7

–

3

–

–

– 2

10

2010/11

627,190,710 868,343,317 1,375,906,626 1,649,546,225

19

Patents

2009/10

– 43

–

–

– –

–

10

25

50

Consultancies

–

–

260

273

286

Conference presentations

–

–

1,540

1,617

1,698

Research publications

–

–

1,288

1,417

1,559

Source: Research, Production and Extension Strategic Plan, 2013–2018, University of Nairobi, 2013c.

the same industry group as a highly important source of information. This is compared with 33.6 percent who indicated universities and colleges as sources of information for innovation and 70.6 percent, 71.8 percent, and 64.1 percent who indicated conferences, professional associations, and scientific journals as sources of information for innovation. A survey by UNESCO (2015) shows that 37.6 percent of firms in Kenya valued universities as a source of information for innovation, while 42.6 percent of firms surveyed collaborated with universities compared with 40.9 percent that collaborated with public research institutes. The picture that emerges is that of low collaboration between firms and universities, thus contributing to the low rating of universities as sources of information for innovation and economic development of the country. This would be attributed to nature of partnerships between universities and funding agencies. There would be instances where research output from the universities is counted on the side of external partners’ agencies even when the researchers involved are from Kenyan universities. The increasing number of enrollments in the institutions has also increased teaching workload and limited the time available for academics to engage in research and knowledge production (Oanda, Fatuma, and Wesonga, 2008). To their credit, universities have included the component of community engagement and research extension into their research activities to strengthen links between the institution’s research activities and communities. Community engagement is a core aspect that internationalization promotes to ensure universities become not only globally competitive, but also locally relevant.

564

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 33.4 Important sources of innovation for Kenyan Firms, 2008–2011 Category

Information source

Internal sources

Innovation active firms Number

Percentage

103 105 94 62

88.0 89.7 80.3 53.0

Sources within same enterprise group

External sources Market

Suppliers of equipment Clients or customers Competitors Consultants

Institutional

Universities and technical colleges Government or private research institutions

44 47

33.6 40.2

Other

Conferences Scientific journals Professional associations

83 75 84

70.9 64.1 71.8

Source: Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology; ASTII Innovation Survey, 2008–2011.

LEVEL AND QUALITY OF ACADEMIC STAFF Universities in Kenya, like most in African countries, have over the years lacked sufficient and qualified academics. The rapid increase in the number of institutions and enrollments over the last two decades has made the situation dire. Even when institutions have resources, recruiting qualified staff and retaining them has been a challenge. One of the promises of internationalization is that it would contribute to improving academic staff capacity through academic mobility, exchange schemes, and interventions focused on supporting doctoral studies and early career academics (Power, Millington, and Bengtsson, 2015). But aspects of globalization-influenced internationalization, including the growth of multinational research outfits, the increasing demand for consultancies that require higher academic skills, and the growth of the NGO sector do contribute to hollowing out capacity from the universities. In other instances, some internationalization activities, while claiming to support capacity in the universities, employ strategies that negate this commitment. Some internationalization-led partnerships do support the establishment of new knowledge-producing institutions and networks with no linkages to established traditional universities but rely on the expertise of a few qualified academics from the universities, thus pulling them out of their full-time engagement in the universities. The consortium for National Health Research (CNHR), a National level NGO established in Kenya to coordinate partnerships in Health research, manifests this trend. In the extreme, external support to higher education in developing countries gives a premium for implementation of such capacity-building activities to universities from the countries providing the support. This is often rationalized on lack of capacity and skills among academics from universities in developing countries. For example, all the eleven grants awarded by the British Department for International development, DIFID, under the East African Research Fund between 2015 and 2017 were awarded to British universities to implement. The management of the fund itself was bestowed to Price-Waterhouse

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

565

Coopers. One would have thought that entrusting management of the fund within universities’ would be a strategy to build capacity in research management within universities. The scenario above is the dilemma that Kenyan universities continue to face. Despite over two decades of staff capacity development supported by a number of partnerships the staffing situation has not improved. The increase in the number of private universities and private students in public universities has only made the situation worse. Over the years, private universities have relied on academics from public universities for part-time teaching. The emergence of a private stream in the public universities has meant that most lecturers are more focused on teaching a large number of part-time classes in several campuses as a strategy to earn extra income (Oanda et al., 2008). This is a case where one outcome from an internationalization strategy (increase in enrollments and diversity of institutions), leads to another negative outcome (staff shortages and declining quality). A study undertaken in one of the private universities reveals that more than 70 percent of lecturers in private universities have never published and more than half of the staff have only attended one or two conferences (Ngure, 2013). The profile of academics in Kenyan universities in terms of academic qualifications and rank as a ratio of the number of students has also been declining over the years. Data from the Commission for Universities education, CUE (Mukhwana et al., 2016) reveals that a majority of the academic staff in the public universities hold only master’s degrees (53 percent) with 34 percent having PhD qualifications. Table 33.5 provides a summary of this data. The statistics above are replayed with regard to ranks and distribution of academics in Kenyan universities. Only 10 percent of the staff component had attained the rank of professor, with 9 percent of the professors in public universities (Mukhwana et al., 2016). Of the academics, 13 percent were at the rank of senior lecturer, while 39 percent and 32 percent were at the ranks of lecturer and assistant lecturer respectively (ibid.). What this means is that 71 percent of the academics in Kenyan universities were at the rank of

TABLE 33.5 Academic staff by qualification and university category University category

Academic qualifications PhD

Total

%

Master’s

Bachelor’s

Diploma

4,215

5,661

1,004

530

11,410

70

Public university constituent colleges

133

292

100

78

603

4

Private chartered universities

923

1,936

168

43

3,070

19

Private university constituent colleges

113

91

6

2

212

1

Private universities operating on interim authority

220

713

87

3

1,023

6

5,604

8,693

1,365

656

16,318

100

34

53

9

4

100

Public universities

Total % Source: Mukhwana et al., 2016: 53.

566

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

lecturer and assistant lecturer, most of whom were undertaking their doctoral studies. The implications for the quality of teaching and in the capacity of institutions to have a critical mass of academics that can compete internationally is apparent. Assistant lecturers and teaching assistants are allocated full teaching loads and student advisory roles such as field supervision; master’s students resorting to project work instead of field-based theses; assigning master’s degree holders to supervise other master’s students and having a large pool of PhD holders who have never published or done any fieldwork but are required to conduct coursework at PhD levels and supervise other PhD students (Gudo, Ollel, and Oanda, 2011: 209–210; Oanda et al., 2008).

DOCTORAL EDUCATION AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Internalization of higher education and doctoral education relate in two respects. In the first instance, institutions seeking to compete globally in terms of teaching and research adopt aspects of internationalization as a means to build research capacity and develop strong institutions. An analysis of the internationalization strategies of Kenyan universities that has been done elsewhere in this chapter has shown their ambition to attain worldclass status through teaching and research. Second, countries and institutions seek to “internationalize” their doctoral programs as brands that attract the highest number of students from diverse countries. Institutions internationalize their doctoral programs as strategies to strengthen research, teaching, and international outreach of universities (Erasmus+, 2018). So, the number of foreign students registered in an institution’s doctoral programs is an indicator of the international acceptability of the academic quality of the program. At the level of institutions, internationalization activities that support doctoral education manifest mostly in three trends. One is through the scholarships provided to students to pursue their studies outside the country or within the countries. The second is through support given to local institutions to support and strengthen capacity in the management and organization of graduate schools. This is a weak structure in most universities in Africa, which often translates to long time to graduation. Third is through interventions that improve the quality of doctoral experiences of students who undertake their studies locally. Latest data from the CUE (2014b) show that, by 2014, doctoral enrollments constituted approximately 10 percent of the student population in Kenyan universities. The low doctoral enrollment is exacerbated by lack of a comprehensive national policy on doctoral education, including crucial aspects such as funding, admissions, and priorities on programs and research (CUE, 2014b). At the institutional level, funding constraints have resulted in the breakdown of the staff development pipeline that made universities vote budgets for staff development as a way of renewing the academic workforce. In terms of number of programs, CUE data shows that there were 336 doctoral programs offered in public universities and 11 in private universities as at March 2014 (ibid.). These are not uniquely different programs, and most are duplications from one institution to the other such that if this element of duplication is addressed, the total number of programs will be much fewer. In the public universities the bulky of the programs are at the University of Nairobi (32 percent). Available data for Kenyatta university shows that in the 2013/2014 academic year, the institution enrolled 1,002 active PhD students against a student population of 70,006 (Republic of Kenya, 2014). This means that PhD enrollments constituted 1.4 percent of the total student enrollment at Kenyatta University. Analysis from graduation trends at Kenyatta University shows that PhD graduates constituted

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

567

0.8 percent, 0.8 percent, and 0.7 percent of total graduates for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013 respectively (Kenyatta university, graduation statistics 2009–2013). The same trend is replicated in the University of Nairobi where PhD graduates constituted 0.57 percent, 0.37 percent, and 0.82 percent of total graduates for the 48th, 49th, and 50th graduations held from December 2013 to December 2013 (University of Nairobi: 2012b, 2013a). What these statistics show is that the percentage of PhD enrollments is not only low in Kenyan universities, but the students tend to take longer to complete their programs. With no comprehensive government policy to support doctoral education and lack of adequate institution-based funding, the bulky of doctoral education in Kenya is supported through various internationalization partnerships, either directly to universities or through other government agencies. Government support for PhD training is administered through NACOSTI, which provides PhD and post-doctoral research grants and serves as a clearing house for PhD training in universities, including through mobilizing resources from external partners. This is besides partnerships at the level of individual universities that support doctoral education. Some of these partnerships include those administered by agencies of foreign governments such the French institute for Research in Africa (IFRA), the British Council, and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). DAAD in particular has become a major player in the provision of doctoral education in Kenya and indeed in the whole of Africa. Besides scholarships, DAAD has supported universities to design and strengthen doctoral education quality assurance practices. Besides support that goes directly to universities, external partnerships constitute a major component of support to various research institutions in the country, which are linked to ministries and universities. These include research centers such as the Kenya Agricultural research Institute (KARI), the Kenya medical Research Institute (KEMRI), International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), among others. These research centers continue to support capacity for research and doctoral education in Kenya while providing the workforce required not only to drive university education but also to open up avenues for new knowledge and solutions to problems in critical areas of national and international concern.

CONCLUSION Discussions in this chapter do attest to the increasing importance of internationalization of higher education to strengthen certain aspects of higher education in Kenya. The research and publications trends discussed, and the support to doctoral programs, though still at low levels, would not otherwise have been achieved without the various partnerships, most of which have been implemented in the context of internationalization strategies pursued by external partners. Two gaps, however, persist that limit both a sense of mutuality and Kenyan universities’ ability to fully optimize benefits from internationalization. First is the lack of a coherent national government policy to moderate institutional practices to the advantage of Kenya in a context where the commercial and political imperatives of internationalization would be the overriding motivation from external partners. The second limitation is a sense, gleaned from the institutional internationalization strategies, that they encourage one-way traffic. Institutions look at internationalization as a means of gaining support from external partners with little consideration of what they would give to leverage the relationships. This approach then

568

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

leads to a sense of patronage from the side of the external partners, undermines the mutuality implied in the ethics of internationalization, and brings back the “imperial echoes” of how universities in Africa were established.

REFERENCES African Innovation Index (AIO) (2014). African Innovation Outlook. NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. NPCA , Pretoria. Alemu, S. (2014). An appraisal of the internationalization of higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. CEPS Journal, 4(2). www.cepsj.si Altbach, P.G. (1989). The new internationalism: Foreign students and scholars. Studies in Higher Education, 14(2): 125–136. Altbach, P.G. (2015). Massification and the global knowledge economy: The continuing contradiction. International Higher Education, 80, Spring. Altbach, P.G., and Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4): 290–305. African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (ASTII) Initiative (2011). The NEPAD experience in measuring STI activities. NEPAD Planning and Coordination Agency. Britain and Northern Ireland, International Education Strategy (2019). International Education Strategy: Global Potential, Global Growths. Government. Caerus Capital (2018). The Business of Education in Africa. Oxford Analytica/Parthenon EY, www.caeruscapital.co Castiello-Gutierrez, S. (2019). Reframing internationalization’s values and principles. University World News, https://www.universityworldnews.com/fullsearch.php?mode=searchandwriter =Santiago+Castiello-Guti%E9rrez Centre for International Programs and Linkages, University of Nairobi, CIPL (2018). Policy on International Programs and links and internationalization. https://international.uonbi.ac.ke/ sites/default/files/centraladmin/cipl/policy.pdf CPS International (2018). The State of Research Funding in Kenyan Universities. CPS International. Commission for University Education, Kenya, CUE (2014a). Strategic Plan, 2014–2018, Nairobi: CUE . Commission for University Education, Kenya, CUE (2014b). Quality Post-graduate Research Training at Universities in Kenya; A National Policy. Presentation at a University education Symposium, Nairobi. Dahir, A.L. (2019). Top American universities are doubling down on their presence across Africa. Quartz Africa, July, https://qz.com/author/adahirqz/ Erasmus+ (2018). State of the Art of the PhD Internationalization Activity. Erasmus+ Program of the European Union. Gravenir, F.Q. (2014). Research, Innovation and Outreach; The Kenyatta University Experience. Paper presented at the EARIMA Meeting, Arusha, August 28–30. Grubb, R. (2019). UK and Kenyan university leaders meet to discuss opportunities for collaboration. March. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/International/news/Pages/UK-Kenyauniversity-leaders-discuss-collaboration.aspx Gudo, C.O., Ollel, M.A., and Oanda, I. (2011). University Expansion in Kenya and Issues of Quality Education: Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(20).

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN KENYA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

569

Gunn, A., and Mintron, M. (2017). The changing shape of global higher education geopolitics. University World News, https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story= 20170529151430202 Harle, J. (2013). Strengthening research in African universities: Reflections on policy, partnerships and politics. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 16. International Association of Universities (IAU) (2003). Internationalization of Higher Education Practices and Priorities: 2003 IAU Survey Report. International Association of Universities (IAU) (2012). Affirming Academic Values in Internationalization of Higher Education: A Call for Action, IAU , April. INASP (2012). Research Environment Study: Kenya, Malawi, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications. Oxford: INASP. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) (2019). Economic Survey. Accessed June 30, 2019, https://www.knbs.or.ke/download/economic-survey-2019/ Kenyatta University, CIPL (2019). Collaborations, Kenyatt University. http://international. ku.ac.ke/collaborations/ King, K. (2014). China’s higher education engagement with Africa: A different partnership and cooperation model? International Development Policy, 5. http://journals.openedition.org/ poldev/1788; doi: 10.4000/poldev.1788 Kritz, M.M. (2018). International student mobility and tertiary education capacity in Africa. International Migration. doi: 10.1111/imig.12053 Malcolmson, S. (2018). The African state after internationalism: What will the demise of Liberal internationalism mean for African states? Policy Analysis. Institute of Peace and Security Studies, Addis Ababa University, 2(3). Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST), Kenya (2014). Support from Development Partners to University Education in Kenya. Directorate of Higher Education. Nairobi, Kenya. Mukhwana, E., Oure, S., Kiptoo, A., Njue, J., Too, M., Njeru, P., and Some, D.K. (2016). State of University Education in Kenya. Nairobi: CUE . Ngure, P. (2013). Teaching burden killing research in universities. Daily Nation Monday, April 15. Oanda, I.O. (2016). Engaging the African academic diaspora: How ready are universities in Africa? International Journal of African Higher Education, 25/26. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/ index.php/ijahe Oanda I.O., Fatuma, C., and Wesonga, D. (2008). Privatization and Private Higher Education in Kenya; Implications for Access, Equity and Knowledge Production. Dakar: CODESRIA . Onana, C.A., Oyewole, O.B., Teferra, D., Beneitone, P., González, J., and Wagenaar, R. (2014). Tuning and Harmonization of Higher Education: The African Experience. The European Commission. Pietsch, T. (2012). Imperial echoes. Times Higher Education. http://www.timeshighereducation. co.uk/story.asp?storycode=419239 Power, L., Millington, K.A., and Bengtsson, S. (2015). Building Capacity in Higher Education Topic Guide. Health and Education Advice and Resource Team (HEART). Republic of Kenya, (2012a). Draft University Education Policy. Nairobi: Government Printer Republic of Kenya (2012b). The Universities Act. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya (2014). Economic Survey. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Education (2019). National Priorities for Research, 2018–2022. National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation.

570

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

SCImago (2018). SJR—SCImago Journal and Country Rank [Portal]. Retrieved October 3 2019, from http://www.scimagojr.com Sehoole, C., and Knight, J. (eds) (2013). Internationalization of African Higher EducationTowards Achieving the MDGs. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Stein, S., Andreotti, V.D., and Susa, R. (2019). Pluralizing frameworks for global ethics in the internationalization of higher education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. June. doi: 10.7202/1060822ar Stromquist, N.P. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in university environments. Higher Education, 53(1), doi: 10.1007/s10734-005-1975-5 Toughill, K. (2019). Canada rejects most African students. Polestar Research, September. https:// studentimmigration.ca/canada-rejects-most-african-students/ Trines, S. (2019). New benefactors? How China and India are influencing education in Africa. WENR , https://wenr.wes.org/2019/04/how-china-and-india-are-influencing-education-inafrica UNESCO (2015). UNESCO Science Report; Towards 2030. A focus on Sub-Saharan Africa. Paris. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO (2019). International Higher Education: Shifting Mobilities, Policy Challenges, and New Initiatives. UNESCO, Global Monitoring Report. UNESCO data (UIS) (2010). UNESCO Institute of Statistics. UNESCO. University of Nairobi (2012a). Current Research Projects. Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research, Production and Extension). University of Nairobi (2012b). Graduation Statistics Booklet, 48th Graduation ceremony. University of Nairobi (2013). Graduation Statistics Booklet, 49th and 50th Graduation ceremonies. University of Nairobi (2013a). Strategic Plan 2013–2018: Towards World-class Excellence. Nairobi: University of Nairobi. University of Nairobi (2013b). Division of Research, Production and Extension; Strategic Plan, 2013–2018. University of Nairobi (2015). Division of Research, Production and Extension; Record of funded research projects and Partnerships, 2010–2015. University of Nairobi. Wandiga, S.O. (2007). Report of the task force for the development of the national strategy for university education, 2007–2015 (The Wandiga Report). Nairobi, Kenya: Government Printer. Weimer, L. (2017). How to make a compelling case for internationalisation. Policy and strategy. EAIE. https://www.eaie.org/blog/make-compelling-case-internationalisation.html Weimer, L. (2018). Where global responsibility meets internationalization. Planning, policy and strategy. EAIE. https://www.eaie.org/blog/category/planning.html Zeleza, P.T. (2012). Internationalization in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges for the Knowledge Project in the Global South. Keynote Address, Vice-Chancellors Leadership Dialogue, A SARUA Leadership Dialogue on Building the Capacity of Higher Education to Enhance Regional Development, Maputo, Mozambique, March 21–22.

CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR

The Internationalization of Higher Education in Nigeria OLUSOLA BANDELE OYEWOLE

INTRODUCTION The Higher Education system in Nigeria is one of the largest in Africa. With over 800 tertiary institutions, among which are 170 universities, 135 polytechnics, and 162 colleges of education, Nigeria has nearly four times more universities than Egypt, over six times more than South Africa, and boasts the largest private university system in Africa. Nigeria is therefore expected to be a model of internationalization in the continent. Unfortunately, the level of internationalization in Nigeria’s institutions is rather low.

NIGERIA’S HIGHER EDUCATION The first higher education institution in Nigeria was Yaba Technical College (which later became Yaba College of Technology) in 1932, established to produce middle-level technical manpower. On establishment, the original Yaba Higher College was meant to produce subordinate officers for the colonial government, and the programs lasted for six to seven years, about twice the length of time used by their European officers to earn their degrees in Britain. This triggered agitation and clamor for a true higher institution of university status and the setting up of the Commission of Higher Education in West Africa in 1943. First, there was the Elliot Commission, which was to report on the organization and facilities of the existing centers of higher education in British West Africa and to make recommendations regarding future university development in that area. This was followed by the Asquith Commission, which wrote the minority report based on the Elliot Commission Report. A boost was received by the education system in Nigeria with the establishment of the University College, Ibadan (later University of Ibadan), in 1948. The University College at Ibadan provided opportunities for students to study in Nigeria for the degrees of the University of London. The program and curriculum of the University were regulated by the Senate of the University of London. Between 1948 and 1960, there appeared to be no major development following the establishment of the University College at Ibadan and the Yaba Higher College. These early centers of higher education in Nigeria can be said to have been internationalized because their curricula were developed by a foreign institution and the lecturers were mainly from the UK. Like many other countries in Africa that were under colonial rule, the early higher education institutions (HEIs) in 571

572

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

these countries were internationalized based on their colonial affiliations with institutions in the countries that colonized them. As of this early stage of Nigeria’s development, internationalization was driven by the colonial affiliation of the country to the UK. Higher education gained more traction with the establishment of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, in 1960, a few days after Nigeria gained independence. The University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) was established in 1961, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, and University of Lagos, Akoka, were established in 1962, and University of Benin, Benin, in 1970. These early universities in Nigeria adopted the curricula of British universities and their mode of operation and culture were also fashioned after British universities. Today, there are over 170 universities among the over 800 tertiary institutions in the country (Table 34.1). The National Policy on Education (1973) identified eight classes of education in Nigeria and these included (i) Pre-Primary Education, (ii) Primary Education, (iii) Secondary Education, (iv) Higher Education including Professional Education, (v) Technical Education, (vi) Adult Education and Non-Formal Education, (vii) Special Education, and (viii) Teacher Education. In this Policy document, only Technical Education was indicated to be identified with the acquisition of practical and applied skills as well as basic scientific knowledge, and the policy was developed without consideration of the emergence and important roles of Information Communication Technology as a tool of educational delivery. Today, Nigeria has three categories of Tertiary Institutions. They are (a) Universities, and other degree-awarding Institutions regulated by the National Universities Commission (NUC), (b) The technical tertiary institutions which offer National Diploma (ND) and Higher National Diploma (HND) as well as Innovation Enterprise Institutions (IEIs), which offer National Innovation Diploma (NID), regulated by the National Board for Technical Education, and (c) Colleges of Education, regulated by the National Commission for Colleges of Education. These are without considering some other post-secondary educational delivering institutions such Colleges of Nursing, College of Health Technology, Health Records Officers Registration Board of Nigeria, Midwifery Council of Nigeria, Association of Medical X-Ray Technicians of Nigeria (AMEXTON) etc. These higher institutions of learning were largely fashioned after those in the UK. The contents of their curriculum were largely fashioned after those of their British counterparts. In addition, the academic traditional and processes of these institutions were adopted from the UK.

TABLE 34.1 Outlook of tertiary institutions in Nigeria Proprietors Category Universities Affiliates for Degrees Polytechnics Specialized Program Institutions Colleges of Agriculture Colleges of Health Sciences Innovation Enterprise Institutions Colleges of Education Grand total

Federal

State

Private

Total

43 33 30 24 18 19 2 22 191

48 41 50 3 16 16 1 56 231

79 37 55 4 0 3 151 84 413

170 111 135 31 34 38 154 162 835

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN NIGERIA

573

THE CONCEPT OF INTERNATIONALIZATION While Knight (2008) defined internationalization as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the purpose, functions (teaching, research, and service), and the delivery of higher education, de Wit and Hunter (2015) modified this and defined internationalization of higher education as “the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society.” Simply put, it is the system and process that help to create world-class institutions and attract foreign students and staff into higher educational systems for cross-cultural education. However, Teferra (2008) argued that tertiary institutions in Africa are the most internationalized based on the fact that they inherited the machineries and processes of higher education into the continent from their colonial authorities. For practical purposes, Knight and Sehoole (2013) reported that higher education internationalization means a series of international activities such as: academic mobility for students and teachers; international linkages, partnerships, and projects; new international academic programs; and research initiatives. To many, internationalization means cooperating with universities in other countries to reform and modernize curricula and pedagogy. For others, internationalization is interpreted as delivering education to other countries using a variety of face-to-face and distance techniques and new types of arrangements such as branch campuses or franchises. Teferra (2008) traced higher education and internationalization in Africa to pre-colonial days when some knowledge centers had begun to flourish in the continent and noted that internationalization has played some important roles in the growth and development of higher education in Africa. Today, internationalization processes are becoming a driver for educational development, and have been influenced by the globalization of economies and society and the increased importance of knowledge (de Wit and Hunter, 2015). In the context of the globalization trends in the world, the higher education institutions in Nigeria need to be global in their orientations and operations. The universality of higher education encourages the need for internationalization at home and abroad. In view of the globalization of world activities, institutions of higher learning cannot achieve their optimum purposes without commitment to internationalization.

STATUS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN NIGERIA When viewed from the colonial dimension, higher education in Nigeria is fashioned after the designs of the British system, and can be said to be internationalized. However, when viewed as the concept of the modern globalization system, the Nigerian higher education system is too localized. Nigeria has no national policy on internationalization of tertiary education and not many institutions are committed to internationalization. The institutions that are actively internationalizing, do so on individual and ad hoc bases. Jega et al. (2019) carried out a survey of 194 tertiary institutions in Nigeria, and reported that there were 1,856 foreign students out of a total of 1,132,795 students. There were 437 foreign academic staff from a total of 5,604 academic staff in these institutions. From this survey, it was found that

574

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

foreign students make up 0.18 percent in Universities, 0.29 percent in Polytechnics and 0.04 percent in the Colleges of Education. The percentage of all foreign students in Nigeria’s tertiary education system as at the 2018/2019 session is 0.16 percent. With regards to academic staff, the percentage of foreign academics in Nigerian Universities is 0.008 percent, and 1.64 percent in the Polytechnics, and 0.18 percent in the Colleges of Education, an indication that the teaching staff in Nigerian tertiary education system is largely dominated by Nigerian academics. The number of international students is very low and the teaching spectrum is populated by Nigerians. This has made the Nigerian higher educational system too localized. Few people will argue that the country’s challenge is to provide access to the very high population of young people seeking admission into tertiary institutions every year. As has been for many years, local demand for university places vastly exceeds capacity that is available in both the public and private universities. In 2017, for example, over 380,000 domestic university applicants did not get a university place. This may account for the population of Nigerian universities by the local youths, and for making the higher education systems look as if they are shut against students from other countries in the world. The effect of this high localization is that Nigerian universities compete very low in the internationalization matrix. International activities in these institutions are more focused on internationalization at home than internationalization abroad. Tertiary institutions in Nigeria are making conscious efforts to promote internationalization. Jega et al. (2019) reported that almost all higher education institutions in Nigeria are committed to one or more of the following internationalization strategies: a. Improving standards of educational delivery to international levels. b. Delivery of educational services to other countries through some emerging new modes of delivery , including advanced communication and technological services and other distance techniques; inclusion of international, intercultural, and/or global dimensions into tertiary institutions in Nigeria the curriculum and teaching and learning processes. c. Promotion of international linkages through research, academic mobility for students and staff, collaboration in teaching and projects. d. Curriculum: New curriculum with international themes; Courses with local and international foci; Foreign language course; e-learning teaching programs. e. Internationalization programs: These include: Student exchange programs; Work/ Study abroad; joint/double degree programs; Faculty/Staff mobility programs; Visiting lectures and Staff programs; Partnership and Networks; Exposure to global context at home; Programs that facilitate global knowledge and understanding along with local contexts. f. Research and Scholarly collaborations: through the following: Joint/collaborative research projects with foreign institutions and partners; Joint proposals/ international research agreements; International conferences and programs/ seminars; research exchange programs; Joint research publications. g. Internationalization of the Quality Assurance and Accreditation processes. The National University Commission (NUC) has been making efforts to internationalize the process of university accreditation. This is being done by

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN NIGERIA

575

comparing the assessment tools with that of their countries and ensuring that they meet international standards. The regulatory agencies of the three arms of tertiary education in Nigeria facilitate and coordinate other formal international educational collaborations involving Nigerian higher education institutions under bilateral agreement protocols. Collaborations have been entered into with a number of countries, donor agencies, and foreign institutions. These agencies participate in many international quality assurance and accreditation programs in and outside Africa and their staff and their evaluators are continuously exposed to international capacity building programs. Nigeria is a country that has no national policy on the internationalization of higher education, and universities that are actively internationalizing are doing so through their personal efforts. Four of the tertiary institutions in Nigeria that have been promoting internationalization are: 1. University of Ilorin, Ilorin. 2. University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 3. Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta. 4. University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos.

Internationalization at the University of Ilorin Reports of internationalization at the University of Ilorin are recounted by Omotosho (2019). On April 8, 2009, the University of Ilorin approved the setting up of the Centre for International Education (CIE) with the following mandates: (a) ensuring that many International Students are admitted to the university, (b) ensuring that International Staff are encouraged to see University of Ilorin as a good place to work, (c) establishing partnership with as many universities and higher education institutions across the globe in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), (d) ensuring that the University of Ilorin enrolls with any global organization that promotes excellence and integrity in higher education. By 2010, over fifty international students from Benin Republic, Togo, Ghana, and Sierra Leone were admitted into the university. To bring in international staff, adverts were placed on websites of some international organizations such as Association of African Universities (AAU), International Association of Universities (IAU), Global University Network Initiatives (GUNI), and of course the University of Ilorin for three categories of staff namely; (a) Sabbatical at Unilorin, (b) Contract tenure at Unilorin, and (c) Post-Doctoral Fellowship at Unilorin. By the beginning of the 2010/2011 academic session, the university was able to attract about twenty different nationals to the university who were from Asia, America, Europe, and Africa. The Centre for International Education at the University of Ilorin was able to facilitate many Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with many institutions from different parts of the world, particularly America, Africa, and Asia. The Centre organizes an annual International Students Day, where the diplomatic missions of their countries in Nigeria are invited to participate.

Internationalization at the University of Ibadan The University of Ibadan, being the first university that was established in Nigeria in 1948, has a long history and experience in internationalization. To drive its internationalization program, the University of Ibadan has a Strategic Document on Internationalization where

576

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

all its policies and plans for internationalization have been documented. It is therefore no surprise that this university is one that attracted the largest number of international students in the country. The university has a Centre for Internationalization and Partnership which coordinates its international operations including international mobilities of students and staff in and out of the country. Until recently, the university was able to boast of many international staff among its faculty and, indeed, offer some degree programs in foreign languages such as German and French. On an annual basis, foreign students come to visit the university as part of split degree programs or on summer attachment to some of the programs of the university. One of the popular programs at the University of Ibadan is the annual, one-year attachment of American students from various universities in the United States who come over to the University of Ibadan to study the Ýoruba’ language. The university is in partnership with many international organizations and institutions. In 2009, the University of Ibadan developed a five-year strategic plan for internationalization (University of Ibadan, 2009) and their roadmaps cover Teaching and Learning Resources, Quality Partnership with Stakeholders, Research and Innovations, and Human Resource Development for Internationalization.

Internationalization at the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta The Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, which was established in 1988, has been committed to internationalization since its inception. The university has adopted internationalization through partnerships with foreign institutions. Many of its faculty members enjoyed the opportunities of split degrees with some foreign universities, and this has contributed immensely in the development of its faculties. Oyewole (2008a, b) outlined strategies that the university can advance further to promote internationalization. Following this, the university set up a Foreign Graduate Scheme, to support academic development in some West African countries, such as Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Gambia that had gone through civil strife. The university also opens its doors to agricultural personnel in many African countries for short-term training in various areas of agricultural studies. As a Centre of Excellence in agriculture, the university opened its doors to students from other African countries for postgraduate studies. To facilitate its international activities, a Centre for Internationalization and Partnership was set up to cater for all international activities in the university. A special hostel facility has just been completed on campus to accommodate international students.

Internationalization at the University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos The University of Lagos was established by an Act of the Federal Parliament in April 1962. Its development was planned to take place in three phases but as a result of the University and National Crisis of 1965, 1967–1970, it took a different turn. The university has about nine faculties which are equipped with standard educational equipment. Obiora (2019) noted that at the University of Lagos, a key principle in the process is that it respects and is guided by local cultures, values, and needs. The process of internationalization at the University of Lagos starts with the admission process. The admission into all programs offered by UNILAG, at postgraduate level, is through online application by a visit to “spgs” website (http://spgs.unilag.edu.ng/). Internationally, the process of lecture delivery has become digitalized, resulting in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Gbarada (2019) reported that the University of Lagos has committed itself to some processes of internationalization including collaborated study scheme, foreign research

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN NIGERIA

577

supervision, and collaborated research conduct by scholars, exchange of course teachers such as visiting professorship as well as sharing of administrative models, personnel, and facilities. Obiora (2019) and Gbarada (2019) were in agreement that there are some challenges facing internationalization in the university. These include inadequate funding, weak governance and leadership, low quality of academic programs, and stifled academic freedoms. Furthermore, Obiora (2019) noted that the activity of strike actions and the university’s intermittent closure is anti-internationalization and does not augur well for the life strategic plan of international students and their sponsors. Obiora (2019) enumerated the roadmap that the University of Lagos can follow in internationalization for it to have further global relevance and this includes increasing funding, encouraging foreigners to have access to the university, avoiding the incessant closure of the university, and promoting the cross campus network and joint research activities with foreign universities. In addition, Open Education Resources should be encouraged by the university with a review policy back-up such that curriculum content of courses in the institution should be tandem with international standards.

IMPERATIVES FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN NIGERIA Globalization and the knowledge economy are principal issues facing almost every country around the world (Yonezawa, 2009). Internationalization is of growing importance to higher education (HE) across the world and it is driven by political, economic, educational, social, and technological advances (Hénard, Diamond, and Roseveare, 2012; South Africa Dept of Higher Education and Training, 2017; UK Higher Education Academy, 2014). There are many regional policies and initiatives relevant for the internationalization of higher education in Nigeria. These include: 1. The Arusha Convention on the recognition of studies, certificates, diplomas, degrees, and other academic qualifications in Higher Education in African States (1981) (replaced by the Addis Convention, 2014). 2. The African Higher Education and Research Space (AHERS, 2013). 3. The African Union’s Agenda 2063 (2014). 4. African Higher Education Summit (2015) where the African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA) was established. 5. Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa (STISA) 2024. 6. Continental Education Strategy for Africa (CESA 16–25). These regional and continental initiatives contain modalities for credit transfers and staff and student mobilities, which when fully implemented will help to facilitate South–South mobilities in Africa, and hence improve internationalization across the continent. Jowi, Knight, and Sehoole (2013) discussed the importance of internationalization to higher education and noted that it has the following benefits: 1. Internationalization enhances research capacity of higher education institutions through research partnerships and collaborations. 2. Internationalization promotes the development of curriculum and learning outcomes, so that learners can acquire the needed skills and competences that can help them to be global players and be employable.

578

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

3. Internationalization supports institutional and faculty staff exchange and mobility. 4. Internationalization helps higher education institutions to be involved in community engagement and knowledge transfers. 5. Research infrastructures and Information Communication Technology facilities are made available easily to institutions that are involved in internationalization. 6. Internationalization is a potential lucrative source of revenue generation, especially for public HEIs, which struggle to cover increasing operational costs, and for private HEIs, which rely heavily on students’ payment for generating resources.

CHALLENGES TO INTERNATIONALIZATION IN THE NIGERIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM While institutions in Nigeria appear to be subscribing to the ideals of internationalization, this is mostly limited to the dimension of “Internationalization at home.” Internationalization is the process of integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into the purpose, functions (teaching, research and service), and the delivery of higher education (Knight, 2008). The level of internationalization in Nigeria’s institutions is rather low. This is what accounts for the situation where more international students are attracted to South Africa and Ghana, countries that cannot boast the number of institutions that are available in Nigeria. The major challenges facing the internationalization of higher education institutions in Nigeria include the following.

Policy Instability and Lack of Policy on Internationalization Various national education policies have been developed to drive the educational system of Nigeria. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for new ones to be developed just as the previous one is about to be implemented. This probably is a reflection of the country’s political mobility, which does not recognize the efforts of most previous administrations. The unstable national education policies have negative effects on the development of higher education and on its internationalization. Nigeria has had several national development plans. The first National Development Plan (1962–68), was formally launched in 1962, while the Second National Development Plan ran from 1970 to 1974. The third National Development Plan (1975–80) was launched at the height of the oil boom. The fourth National Development Plan (1981–85) coincided with the inception of a global economic recession, which sparked declining foreign exchange earnings, balance of payment disequilibrium, and unemployment in the Nigerian economy. This led to evolution of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SA) in 1986 as a strategy to address the challenges of the time. The concept of Vision 20:2020 was also evolved as Nigeria’s blueprint for an industrial revolution before the year 2020. None of the policies addresses the need for the internationalization of higher education in Nigeria. As of today, there is no national framework for internationalization of higher education in Nigeria.

Unstable Academic Calendar The Nigerian higher education system has been bedevilled by spates of staff unions’ strikes, which has made the academic programs of most institutions unstable. This has

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN NIGERIA

579

affected institutional partnership programs and has discouraged foreign students from showing interest in Nigerian institutions.

Challenge of Access to Tertiary Education While access to educational opportunities is a right of every citizen in Nigeria, as enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999), it has not been possible for many qualified Nigerians to acquire the competitive standards required for admission into many tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Demand for university education has increased due to the recent innovations of universal, free, and compulsory education at the basic and senior secondary education level, because most people have a preference for the universities over other tertiary systems. The World Education Review (2017) reported, that because of the relatively low access to tertiary education in Nigeria, Nigeria is the number one country of origin for international students from Africa. It sends the most students overseas of any country on the African continent, and therefore outbound mobility is rampant. There are clear indications that many qualified young Nigerians find it difficult every year to gain access to institutions and courses of their choice. This makes it difficult for foreign students to gain access to the Nigerian higher education space. The resultant effect is that Nigerians spend a huge amount of money every year seeking admission to institutions outside Nigeria. According to data from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS), the number of Nigerian students abroad increased by 164 percent in the decade between 2005 and 2015 alone—from 26,997 to 71,351. There may be other factors other than access driving the outward migration of Nigerian youths. The government response to the access challenge is to establish more universities, while many of the existing universities have not attained their maximum capacities. Efforts are also being made to increase the number of private universities, the major problem with which is the high cost of fees, which makes it difficult for young people from poor homes to consider them. The government has lately encouraged the operation of the Nigerian Open University, which is offering distance learning education to many young people. The major challenge of the latter is that many of the students in this program have no jobs and are attending the distance learning course as if they are on fulltime university programs.

Underfunding Higher education institutions in Nigeria are yet to find solutions to the severe financial crisis that has affected the higher education system for many years. Public expenditure on education is still too low. Nigeria contributes less than 1 percent of its GDP to education. Yet the governments promote a policy of free education without con-committal financial commitments to back it up in many cases. Due to funding constraints, most of Nigeria’s public universities are in deteriorating condition. And while efforts at increasing capacity by building new universities have generally been positive for access in absolute terms, they have also created issues related to instructional quality. Nigeria’s institutions and lecture halls are severely overcrowded, student to teacher ratios have skyrocketed, and faculty shortages are chronic. Lab facilities, libraries, dorms, and other university facilities are often described as being in a state of decay. A large proportion of lecturers at universities are assistant professors without

580

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

doctoral degrees. Reports from 2012 suggested that only 43 percent of Nigeria’s teaching staff held PhD degrees, and that Nigeria had one of the worst lecturer-to-student ratios in the world. The Federal government, which is responsible for sustaining public universities, has over the past decade not significantly increased the share of the government budget dedicated to education, despite exploding student numbers. Between 2003 and 2013, education spending fluctuated from 8.21 percent of the total budget in 2003 to 6.42 percent in 2009, and to 8.7 percent in 2013. In 2014, the government significantly increased education spending to10.7 percent of the total budget, but it remains to be seen if this share can be maintained following the oil price-induced fiscal crisis. The government funding, until recently has majorly been enough to cater for the salaries of staff. The annual and continuous struggle of the Academic Staff Union of Nigerian Universities (ASUU) has helped in improving the infrastructures on many campuses and the support of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) appears to be the major source of funds for infrastructural development on many campuses. The challenges of underfunding of higher education in Nigeria has a negative impact on its internationalization.

Localized Admission Process One of the constraints to the internationalization of higher education systems in Nigeria is the low patronage of foreign and non-Nigerians in the admission process, administered every year by the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board of Nigeria (JAMB). Appropriate machineries have not been put in place for foreigners to participate in the university matriculation examination for admissions into tertiary institutions in Nigeria. The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board establishment was promulgated by the act (no. 2 of 1978) of the Federal Military Government on February13, 1978. By August 1988, the Federal Executive Council amended decree No. 2 of 1978 to empower the Board to conduct matriculation examinations for entry into all polytechnics and colleges of education in the country and to place suitably qualified candidates in the available places in these institutions. The amendments have since been codified into decree No. 33 of 1989, which took effect from December 7, 1989. As of 2017, the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), conducted by the Joint Admission Matriculation Board (JAMB), was available to both Nigerian and foreign candidates. The foreign centers are located in Benin Republic, Cameroon, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, South Africa, the UK, and Saudi Arabia. This proposal seeks strategies to improve the patronage of Nigerian Higher Education systems by candidates outside Nigeria. It proposes strategies to encourage Nigerian institutions to internationalize their activities and broaden current JAMB efforts for the admission of foreign students.

Weak Support for Research One of the major drivers of internationalization is research. Research promotes partnership and mobilities which are major activities of internationalization. Internationalization will be hampered in a country where the research activities are not well coordinated and not focused. Many higher education institutions in Nigeria are burdened with a myriad of problems that they have little time and resources for effective research. Research as connoted in this article refers to independent intellectual enquiry into diverse disciplines and areas, which lead to the creation of new and significant knowledge.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN NIGERIA

581

The modern world is currently being transformed through research. The growth of nations and, indeed, the economics of nations today, depend on their commitments to knowledge generation and utilization through research. One of the failures in the African continent is the failure of many nations in Africa to accord research the priority it deserves. Research is strategically important in universities, as it is necessary to facilitate good-quality undergraduate and graduate training, help universities to motivate and empower their researchers and promote the training of future researchers. Many Nigerian Universities have lost the capacity for doing sustainable research. As early as 1964, at a UNESCO meeting held in Nigeria, African countries, recognizing the importance of research to their national development, committed themselves to spend at least 0.5 percent of their Gross National products on scientific research. Unfortunately, most countries in Africa have not been able to stand up to this challenge. It is known that sub-Saharan Africa, including Nigeria, spends less than 0.3 percent of its GNP on research and the region has been identified as one that contributes the least to research funding in the world. Africa’s share of global scientific output has fallen from 0.5 percent in the mid-1980s to 0.3 percent in the mid-1990s. Nigeria’s research system is still fashioned after the colonial era system. The nation’s research system includes largely (a) university and other tertiary education institutions research, (b) government and international research institutes, (c) individual industrial research laboratory, and (d) private research set-ups. The most recognized are the first two, namely the universities and tertiary institutions research and the research institutes. Some Nigerian research institutes include Cocoa Research Institute, Ibadan, Forestry Research Institute, Ibadan, Federal Institute for Industrial Research (FIIRO), Lagos, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Medical Research Institute, Lagos, Leather Research Institute, Zaria, and Lake Chad Research Institute, Maiduguri. The challenges in the education sector have affected the research in the tertiary education sectors. Most of the research carried out in the education sector appears to be limited to those carried out for the purpose of early degrees and postgraduate qualifications. Except for the recent effort of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) to fund university research, there are no funding mechanisms or organizations of the government to support and fund research in our tertiary institutions. Some institutions employ part of their internally generated funds to support their local research but this is usually insufficient to make desired impact. Many of the research institutes were established by and had been fashioned after the vision of the colonial authorities and many of them have not changed their identities and visions since then. Most of them are fashioned after some agricultural products needed by the colonial authorities. Today, there are over forty government research institutes in Nigeria and a large proportion of them are focused on agricultural issues. The agricultural research system appears to be the most extensive in the nation. Agricultural research is a critical enabler to economic growth and development with its relevance cutting across the policy process. Its role cannot be overemphasized, especially as a developing nation with a rapidly increasing population where agriculture plays a vital role in the economy. The nation need agricultural research to assist in ascertaining and finding out varying inputs, adopted technologies tools and techniques, in addition to the newest ways to combat issues relating to pests and diseases as well as coming up with pest, disease, and drought resistant crops in addition to new techniques in biotechnology derived from agricultural products.

582

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The most current agricultural policy is the Agriculture Promotion Policy (APA), a fouryear plan (2016–2020), which was initiated to close notable gaps that existed in the previous plan of the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) that was in place from 2011–2015. As in the educational sector, the nation’s research system is affected by various challenges, including: ●

Low and unpredictable research budget

●

Shortage of scientific and technical staff

●

Lack of modern equipment and facilities

●

Misappropriation of funds

●

Poor research leadership and management

●

Lack of competitive research granting system

●

Lack of governmental interest in research outputs

●

●

Absence of national calamities to trigger government support for research needs (note, however, that recent cases of an Ebola outbreak and tremors in Abuja triggered a government increase in support for research in these areas) Unstable research policies.

The result of all the above is that we are not a research-driven nation. The industrial and private research laboratories are only focusing research on areas that can improve their commercial activities, and many multinational industries in Nigeria depend on the research outputs of their home countries. Internationalization activities will be low if a nation lacks a vibrant research culture and if the scientists are complacent and not active in research.

STRATEGIES FOR PROMOTING INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN NIGERIA To further promote the internationalization of higher education in Nigeria, both the institutions and the government have important roles to play. There will be a need for the government to develop a national framework for the internationalization of higher education. It is expected that the framework will provide guidelines to institutions on the processes and policies they should develop for internationalization. This will make it possible for institutions to provide funds annually in their budget to drive their internationalization activities. It will be necessary for institutions to make internationalization a key part of their mission and to provide appropriate budgeting for activities and programs that promote internationalization. Particular encouragement should be given to international collaboration between local and foreign HEIs, by mounting double degree programs, joint degree programs, and split-site degree programs. Support should be given to staff and students for mobilities. Nigerian universities will need to review their curriculum so that they can be marketable internationally. Some language studies that are of interest to some foreign countries should further be enhanced. The admission process should be reviewed such that it will be possible for international students to take part in the Joint Admission examination from any part of the world. In addition, Nigerian universities that want to promote internationalization will need to commit themselves to the following:

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN NIGERIA

583

a. Advertise for international students through international newspapers, university website etc. b. Publish information on courses available (must be accredited) and requirements for admission into such programs. c. Work towards entrenching a stable academic calendar, and develop a zero tolerance for staff union strikes that disrupt academic and research programs. d. Treat students from other African countries as local (home) students for the purposes of tuition and possibly accommodation. e. Establish language immersion centers to cater for needs of non-English-speaking candidates. f. Work out credit transfer mechanisms to facilitate credit recognition between universities within and outside Nigeria.

REFERENCES de Wit, H., and Hunter, F. (2015). The future of internationalization of higher education in Europe. International Higher Education, 83: 2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ IHE.2015.83.9073 Hénard, F., Diamond, L., and Roseveare, D. (2012). Approaches to Internationalization and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice: A Guide for Higher Education Institutions. OECD Higher Education Program. http://www.oecd.org/education/ Imhe/Approaches%20to%20internationalization%20-%20final%20-%20web.pdf Jega, A., Oyewole, O.B., Jegede, O., Mikailu, A.S., Ekpo, C., Kuupole, D., Oladiji, A., Saliu, N.B., Isgogo, M., and Uji, V. (2019). Internationalization of admission into tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Report of the committee set up by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board. Nigeria, 104. Jowi, J.O., Knight, J., and Sehoole, C. (2013). Internationalization of African higher education: Status, challenges and issues. In Sehoole, C., and Knight, J. (eds), Internationalization of African Higher Education: Towards Achieving the MDGs. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Knight, J., and Sehoole, C. (2013). Introduction. In Sehoole, C., and Knight, J. (eds), Internationalization of African Higher Education: Towards Achieving the MDGs. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. National Policy on Education (Revised) (1973). Report of an Expert Seminar under the Chairmanship of Chief S.O. Adebo. Obiora, S.F. (2019). Internationalization of the University of Lagos: An analytical approach. Unilag News, January 29. Oluwasogo, G. (2019). Internationalization of the University of Lagos: The prospects and challenges. Unilag News, February 11, 2019. Omotosho, A.O. (2019). A decade of internationalization in Unilorin: Prospect and challenges. Paper delivered on May 2, 2019, to mark ten years anniversary of the establishment of the Centre for International Education and 9th International Student’s Day. Onyukwu, J., Clark, N., and Ausukuya, C. (2017). Education in Nigeria. World Education News Review, March 7, 2017, https://wenr.wes.org/2017/03/education-in-nigeria

584

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Oyewole, O.B. (2008a). Quality Imperatives in Education for the Achievement of Nigeria’s 20-2020 Vision. National Education Summit, 2008: Repositioning Nigeria’s educational system for the achievement of the nation’s 20-2020 vision. Abuja. Oyewole, O.B. (2008b). Internationalization of the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta. Public Lecture delivered on June 25, 2008. South Africa Dept of Higher Education and Training (2017). Draft Policy Framework for the Internationalization of Higher Education in South Africa. Teferra, D. (2008). The international dimension of higher education in Africa: Status, challenges and prospects. In Teferra, D., and Knight, J. (eds), Higher Education in Africa: The International Dimension. Accra/Boston: AAU/CIHE . UK Higher Education Academy (2014). Internationalizing Higher Education Framework. http://www.heacademy.ac.ul/system/files/resources/Internationalizing heframeworkfinal.pdf UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) (2016). Statistics on migration of students from Nigeria. University of Ibadan (2009). Engaging a Rapidly Changing World: A Five Year Strategic Plan for Internationalization; 2009–2014. WES (2017). Education in Nigeria. https://wenr.wes.org/2017/03/education-in-nigeria World Bank (2008). Accelerating catch-up: Tertiary education for growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Synopsis, 7. Yonezawa, A. (2009). Internationalization of Japanese higher education: Policy, debates and realities. Nagoya Higher Education Research. Japan, 9: 199–218.

CHAPTER THIRTY-FIVE

Conclusion The State of Internationalization of Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa HADIZA KERE ABDULRAHMAN, EVELYN C. GARWE, JULIET THONDHLANA, AND SABELO J. NDLOVU-GATSHENI

INTRODUCTION Internationalization has emerged as one of the most significant areas of change in higher education (HE) across the world in recent times (Maringe, Foskett, and Woodfield, 2013), with varying socio-economic, cultural, and technological impacts depending on context. Olukoshi and Zeleza (2004) state that as the twenty-first century unfolds, African universities are undergoing change and confronting challenges which are unprecedented. In this cross-cutting chapter, we discuss what can be gleaned, synthesized, and distilled from the six different thematic chapters representing particular Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) contexts as a contribution to the overall internationalization of higher education (IHE) debate. The main intention is to draw readers’ attention to emerging themes and gaps regarding IHE in SSA contexts that are useful for benchmarking, comparative analysis, and guiding decision making for various higher education stakeholders, inclusive of higher education institutions (HEIs), academics, governments, quality assurance agencies, researchers, students, curriculum developers, and international personnel. Refer to the various thematic country chapters for a detailed exposé of IHE in each context. This agenda of internationalization though appears to be entangled with other inextricably intertwined processes. This complexity and entwinement of issues is well articulated by Olukoshi and Zeleza (2004: 3) who, while stressing the need to redefine the roles of the African university, also laid out ten key issues that must also be considered during this process. The first of these issues is how to “balance autonomy and viability”; the second being how to balance “expansion and excellence”; the third, how to achieve “equity and efficiency”; the fourth is how to deal with “access and quality”; fifth, how to express “authority and accountability”; with the sixth being how to maintain “representation and responsibility.” The seventh is how to balance “diversification and differentiation.” The eighth is how to attain “internationalization and indigenisation” as well as how to balance “global presence/viability and local anchorage.” Lastly, the tenth is how to attain “the preservation of local knowledge systems and the adoption of global knowledge,” as well as keep a balance between “the knowledge economy and knowledge society” (Olukoshi and Zeleza, 2004: 3). They emphasize the importance of these universities needing to address the challenges of knowledge production and dissemination. 585

586

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The issues outlined above show clearly that the agenda of internationalization has to be pursued while taking into account so many other variables, tasks, and challenges facing the higher education sector in any context, particularly in the SSA region, including aspects of “academic freedom and professional ethics, privatisation and the public purpose, teaching and research, community service/social responsibility and consultancy, and indeed ‘diversity and uniformity”’ (Olukoshi and Zeleza, 2004 :3). In fact, Maringe et al. (2013) find that despite the global rhetoric about an emerging isomorphism in HE, wide disparities continue to exist in various settings which entrench poverty differentials that have always existed between universities in the North and those in the South, with these disparities presenting very different internationalization challenges in different settings. In many settings, Sub-Saharan Africa included, internationalization seems to be a response to globalization. Globalization has changed the ways that not only knowledge is disseminated but the way that research and teaching is undertaken. With Maringe and Foskett (2010) observing that internationalization appears to be a key strategy of the influence of globalization adopted by universities, with internationalization generally understood to mean the integration of an international or intercultural dimension into the tripartite mission of teaching, research and service function of higher education, Dzvimbo and Moloi (2013) add that internationalization and globalization are two sides of the same coin, sharing many common characteristics yet not synonymous with each other. They warn that in a shrinking world in which neo-liberal discourse has permeated Sub-Saharan African (SSA) higher education, critical reflection is required to assess its merits and demerits, adding that for far too long, SSA has been pressured by neo-liberal market economies and government policies into serving their interests before its own. Olukoshi and Zeleza (2004) highlight how the effects of globalization, the political and economic pressures of liberalization and privatization, both internal and external, are reconfiguring all aspects of university life and their public service function. Zeleza (2005) also observes what amounts to the trade in educational services for higher education under the auspices of the General Agreement of Trade (GATS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), cautioning that insofar as GATS is an evolving process, it is imperative that African universities participate actively in constructing their legal, conceptual, and operational architecture. The foregoing chapters on internationalization of HE in SSA also reveal the need for internationalization to be implemented in a strategic manner, which takes into account not only issues of globalization but also of decolonization, de-imperialization, and deracialization as articulated by Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018). This is equally why the task of internationalization is always entangled with regionalization, “Africanization,” as well as nationalization as part of the core objectives of the Association of African Universities (AAU). This therefore makes it imperative that Internationalization of Higher Education (IHE) from an African perspective, must be part of a decolonization which privileges notions of interdependent worlds and mutually respective sovereign nations. As far back as 1963 when Julius Nyerere became the first black Chancellor of the University of East Africa (Makerere, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam), he reflected deeply on how to achieve international standards while at the same time not compromising on local imperatives, emphasizing that the African university has to “take active part in the social revolution we are engineering” predicated on nation-building, economic development, pan-Africanism and assertion of African consciousness (Nyerere, 1966: 219). The development of national and institutional IHE policies is therefore often seen as paramount in these contexts, though this has been generally characterized by an ad hoc approach to these developments in most of the contexts that this chapter looks at. It

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

587

appears largely, that there has been no real nuanced articulation of “internationalization” as a national approach supporting higher education in many of the different SSA contexts explored. Perhaps this is due to the fact that African HEIs are “born international” in outlook, but not anchored socially in the countries where they are born as “universities in Africa” rather than “African universities” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). Internationalization in many African contexts still appears very much accidental and incremental, often with policy occurring after the fact. The discussion of the internationalization processes in the various African settings explored therefore centers around the balancing act of attempting to internationalize while at the same time trying to attain autonomy, viability, excellence, efficiency, maintaining representation, global presence, and local anchorage; all the while working at preserving local knowledge systems and adopting global knowledge in the various settings; while of course also bearing in mind the imperative of IHE being part of a process which privileges the key notion of interdependent worlds. Clearly a very complicated process but one which highlights the complexity at the heart of the task of internationalization. So, this chapter is really about introducing the readers to emerging understandings and approaches, especially with several of the chapters having a strong focus on policy frameworks development, highlighting the ways that these frameworks are not only analyzed, but also used to theorize and understand the particular specificities of IHE in Sub-Saharan Africa. Especially with IHE being seen as multi-dimensional, multi-faceted and inextricably intertwined with other issues (including decoloniality) as mentioned earlier—looking at strategies, challenges, as well as its development and operationalization, appears a good starting point. In the next section, therefore, this chapter looks at the various issues and processes of the internationalization agenda of different SSA contexts including South Africa, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Kenya, and Ethiopia.

INTERNATIONALIZATION STRATEGIES, ISSUES, AND PROCESSES What this section tries to do is provide a cross-cutting understanding of the key commonalities across the region—in so doing, it highlights the differences, since the exploration of commonalities invariably articulates differences. As a strategy, this allows it to be useful as a synopsis of the internationalization processes happening in higher education institutions in several of the fore-mentioned contexts. The aim is to draw together all that has been written and view it through different lenses and theoretical constructs, especially with IHE increasingly being situated within a decolonial project. Decoloniality will therefore also be adopted as a major analytical lens for the exploration of internationalization strategies and processes. Coloniality itself is not only a power structure but also an epistemological design. It therefore addresses epistemological questions of how colonial modernity has interfered with other ways of knowing, social meaning-making, imagining, and seeing; it also concerns the exertion of hegemonic power and oppression, resulting in the current asymmetrical global power structure that centers around countries in the Global North (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013), it is the darker side of modernity. Since coloniality works as a crucial structuring process within global imperial designs, sustaining the superiority of the Global North, part of the purpose here will be an attempt to unmask coloniality as a

588

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

possible underside of internationalization while still recognizing what positive aspects there may be of it. All the various chapters reveal that in addition to the many structural and systemic challenges that these SSA countries have to deal with, they also must contend with the growing complexities of internationalization, which has been found to include a competitive knowledge society of global higher education, one in which African universities not only have to participate but are disadvantaged by structural and historic imbalances to be efficiently competitive, this clearly shows a problematization of “internationalization” itself. The argument by Jowi (2012) is that many African universities are being engulfed by internationalization, and this internationalization is happening at a time when uncertainty surrounds the potential of African universities to meaningfully utilize the opportunities while at the same time respond (meaningfully) to the challenges of their respective contexts. Looked at with a decolonial lens, this could be a reason why internationalization for these various countries has assumed a “vertical” character of universities in Africa seeking to connect with those in Europe and North America, rather than taking the necessary “horizontal” internationalization—enabling universities in African to connect with each other and those of the Global South before connecting with those in the Global North (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). Perhaps, what needs to be problematized in the first instance is the concept of “international” itself. Within societies emerging from colonialism and peripherization, the international commonly means Europe and North America. This is highly problematic and “colonial,” making the whole push for internationalization even more complex. The above was an issue highlighted in both Kenya and Ghana. In Ghana, internationalization is rightly considered against a backdrop of colonial legacies and neoliberal ideologies and their continued impact on the various processes. The chapter rightfully calls for an awareness of the new forms of power relations created and fostered through internationalization and also cautions against a new kind of dependency on the Global North, where the South goes “supplicating for funds from the North.” The chapter also cautions that knowledge from the Global South does not need to be validated by the North. This call is decolonial in thinking and chimes with the need to constantly provincialize the North and Europe. In Kenya, the chapter also recognizes the pressures exerted upon institutions in the Global South to internationalize, often with the reason given that this makes the institutions “strong conduits” for “knowledge economies” flow. It asks the extent to which the internationalization process has been a one-sided imposed external practice, with the potential to corrode the capacity of national level institutions. It highlights the level to which promises of internationalization remain unexamined, wondering if the struggle to internationalize by Kenyan HEIs has diverted attention and money that could have been used to regenerate instead. Importantly though, the chapter also casts a critical decolonial light on these processes by charting a history of this “internationalization push” and the effects of globalization on its knowledge economy, Questioning the way that the whole process has a “Western face,” and the effects of this in the long term. This lends itself to the argument by Maringe et al. (2013) that internationalization can be seen to be synonymous with the notion of “Westernisation”— the export of Western ideas, culture, language, and superior forms of humanity and existence, which can come with a deletion of other cultural forms of exchange and progress at the feet of the dominant Western forms. This remains one of the prime decolonial reasons for vigilance against what Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013) refers to as the trap of normalizing and universalizing coloniality as a natural state of the world.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

589

In the case of Zimbabwe, the chapter asks that African countries like Zimbabwe with a colonial history should take into cognizance the potential tensions between IHE and decolonization, with a clear need to strategize around their particular contextual realities. Following the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth and the imposition of sanctions, Zimbabwe’s HEIs became isolated, with the country adopting a “look-East” policy towards East-Asian countries in response to the deteriorating economic stability. China now has a significant amount of outward-bound Zimbabwean students. This “lookEast” policy is not new as it alludes to something deeper and recognizable as a “scramble for Africa,” a move which exists in various forms as is evident in the Ethiopian context where there have been massive efforts made in terms of the mobility of people, programs, and collaborative research with China and Europe also getting in on this initiative. The theme of student and staff mobility is also common as a key process of internationalization in all the contexts explored, though to varying degrees. In the case of Nigeria, the chapter tries to highlight three key themes: it gives an overview of what it calls “the IHE spectrum” in that context; it also provides us with a history of the development of higher education in Nigeria, and finishes off by exploring internationalization practices and activities as they currently apply. The way it does this is by examining the international office, the internationalization of classrooms, leadership training, research, quality assurance systems, and student mobility. It also presents results from aspirations and directions of graduate students and capacity development. The major argument that the chapter makes is that, when viewed through the concept of what it calls the “modern globalization system,” the Nigerian higher education system is too localized with very few international staff and students. The resulting effect, it argues, is that Nigerian universities “compete very low” in the internationalization matrix. This chapter does not appear to scrutinize the very existence of the matrix, which would be more in line with key decolonial thinking, rather it appears to call for more of this common form of internationalization approach which centers heavily on student and staff mobility. In the twenty years post-Apartheid, South Africa has experienced massive levels of inward student mobility and subsequently its HEIs are considered highly internationalized, all helped by what is seen as its unique geo-political position in that region and in the world and the quality of its HE. These are further enhanced by the role South Africa plays in the geo-politics of the region, the continent, and the world. A role especially endorsed by the “powers that be”—those considered high up in the global matrix of power—and which confers certain credence to South Africa and its affairs; all of which make South Africa an attractive destination for students. Set within a very recent history of domination and marginalization (with the Apartheid regime), though South Africa did start out less internationalized, the focus of the chapter is therefore on the progress that has been made in the twenty years since Apartheid. For Ethiopia, on the other hand, historically internationalization came in the nature of massive student mobility to America, and after the overthrow of its emperor, then with a shift in alliance from the West to the former Eastern Socialist Bloc. Student and staff mobility therefore, appears to be a strong recurring feature of the IHE terrain in SSA. In most of the contexts explored, it also becomes apparent that internationalization is intertwined with globalization and that this globalization is the context of the economic and academic trend that is part of the current reality. Internationalization is also conceived to be mainly and largely about student and staff mobility. The movement of students and staff from one country to the other, often from Sub-Saharan Africa to richer, more technologically advanced countries in the Global North, is what has come to be known as

590

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

internationalization, and in many ways is the key to judging the efficacy of the process, not least because of its ability to be a huge income generator, which in the neoliberal era within which higher education now exists, is a massive advantage. The unexplored downside to this is what Maringe et al. (2013) argue to be the potential for the erosion of quality through talent migration to richer nations; with talented students also being attracted by richer Western universities. Internationalization though is still seen as beneficial for political and economic policies with the economic contributions cited as the key driver. For many of the SSA countries explored, these recognizable features of internationalization, including staff and student exchange, and knowledge exchange, are actually in the very DNA of universities in this region given their beginnings as colonial establishments. This is evident for Zimbabwe especially but also in Kenya, Nigeria, and Ghana which all developed strong links with their colonizers that have persisted to date. So, the kind of student and staff mobility that is regarded as the hallmark of internationalization here is not between neighboring African countries, or the “horizontal approach” to internationalization, rather it is the kind that encourages a “Look-North” approach in the direction of the global super powers. Coloniality it appears is also sustained in the asymmetrical knowledge structure, one that not only continues to make the North appear alluring to the South, but that cannot be separated from the overarching power structures and dynamics upon which the modern world is predicated. The above is one of the reasons why internationalization processes in these settings have to be explored with an additional decolonial lens. Decoloniality is really about confronting coloniality in all domains of Power, Being, and Knowledge and will therefore always remain an unfinished business. It is more than just moving from one fundamentalism to another, rather it is about moving from one ecology of knowledge to multiple ecologies in service of the world. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) states that decolonization is not about revenge. It is important to keep what is useful while seeking to decolonize various things through, for instance: examining normative foundations of theory; re-provincializing Europe rather than the over-representation which exists and de-provincializing Africa; undertaking a decolonial critique of dominant knowledges and unmasking what is concealed; rethinking thinking itself, through the recovery of subaltern/other knowledges; and learning to unlearn in order to relearn. So really a paradigmatic shift from what was meant for colonization to what is meant for liberation and freedom. Zeleza (2005) points out that for African universities to be able to meet the challenges of “Internationalization,” they must reconfigure Pan-Africanism: by strengthening the regional systems of student and faculty mobility and exchange; by setting up, streamlining, and strengthening regional quality assurance and accreditation bodies; by establishing centers of excellence; and by mobilizing Africa’s academic diasporas, both historic and contemporary. This is in line with calls for the “horizontal approach” to internationalization that has been advocated in this chapter. It is also the thinking that is present in some of the settings explored, especially as we move on to review various other tensions of internationalization.

INTERNATIONALIZATION TENSIONS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA In the countries explored, what quickly becomes apparent is the wide range of internationalization processes and approaches. Key to all of them though as mentioned earlier is student and staff mobility; and knowledge exchange and collaboration with

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

591

mainly countries in the Global North—what can be termed a “vertical approach” to internationalization, which places at the very center of this kind of internationalization the “Look North” approach. What is however also glaring is a lack of strategic and wellarticulated internationalization policy, with much of it happening in an accidental and incremental nature, often with varying degrees of success. Zimbabwe, for example, has a well-established higher education system that has always had aspects of internationalization stemming primarily from its filial relationships to universities in Britain and so continues to engage in some form of internationalization on an ad hoc and uncoordinated basis, though this is changing with the increased role and visibility of ZIMCHE, its HEIs quality assurance body. For Ghana, internationalization is only just becoming a key agenda for its universities, with this being seen as crucial for becoming globally competitive and more visible. Ghana has a well-developed higher education system made up of universities, colleges, polytechnics, and other professional and degree-awarding institutions, with the HE system having gone through several phases marked by various reforms, policies, and strategies including nationalization, “Africanisation,” and development. Internationalization of Ghanaian higher education is not without its challenges though, especially in terms of a clear and coherent national strategy and policy formation. The country has no known national policy on internationalization to regulate and direct recognizable internationalization activities such as teaching, outreach programs or even what the chapter recognizes as a framework which promotes and showcases core national values. Only the University of Ghana was found to possess a stand-alone publicized strategic plan for internationalization, in the absence of very little national discourse, debates, and discussions on internationalization itself. Like Ghana, Nigeria was also found to have no national policy on IHE, with internationalization largely being left to individual universities to pursue, often with mixed results. For South Africa, set within a very recent history of domination and marginalization (with the Apartheid regime), there is a slower uptake of IHE. Higher education institutions in South Africa started out less internationalized due to the effects of apartheid, including: boycott, sanctions, and censorship of curriculum. The focus therefore remains on what progress has been made in the twenty years since Apartheid, especially on different approaches to internationalization, the internationalization of research, and that of higher education and technology. Much of the change to HE in South Africa was in order to dismantle the architecture of the divided higher education system of the apartheid era and in order to create a single coordinated system. Democratization and globalization were found to be the twin challenges of HE, with little attention paid to internationalization itself. Historically, just as in the Ethiopian situation, internationalization was used by various superpowers as a political instrument in the form of international education exchange and cooperation, and really used to expand spheres of influence—in what this chapter recognizes as the “scramble for Africa.” A useful reminder at this point is that universities are part and parcel of the colonial project and are unapologetically Eurocentric. Mbembe (2016) argues that most universities in Africa still follow the hegemonic “Eurocentric epistemic canon,” with Mamdani (1998) stating that a curriculum that “reconstructs” Africa from the historical, civilizational, political, economic, and political standpoint perspective will not happen until Eurocentric institutional cultures and staff demographics at universities fundamentally change. Therefore, decolonization of higher education is really also about the kind of justice that addresses the lingering epistemic violence of colonialism.

592

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Many of the contexts, however, have awoken to the intricacies of internationalization with some paying attention to how best to maximize its potentials while watching out for its pitfalls; Zimbabwe is one such country, with Kenya and Ghana also. It appears that for many in these contexts, internationalization is actually favored for what is seen as its transformational capabilities, regarded as a beneficial tool for economic and political policies with its contribution. Maringe et al. (2013) related some other anticipated benefits of internationalization to four broad areas of value creation including: strategic and symbolic value; knowledge creation value; cultural integration value; and global market value. They observed that some of the associated risks of internationalization were “brain drain,” the dominance of Western hegemony, commodification of HE, and perceived erosion of quality. Many of the fore-mentioned were noticeable in the contexts explored and really emphasize the complexity of internationalization as a double-edged sword. Take the case of Ethiopia. Again, there is the common theme of awareness of IHE as a capacity-building tool in the realms of both teaching and learning. IHE in Ethiopia though, despite government efforts, is still characterized by a lack of clearly defined policies and fragmentation of efforts. For Zimbabwe, there is apparent progress. The chapter reviews the country’s higher education system, especially the current drive to transform and reconfigure it to enhance innovation and development, through reviewing the baseline study by Thondhlana et al. (2019) that informed the process. That study was commissioned by ZIMCHE and Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education and it found complexities of internationalization evident, especially when mobilizing diverse institutions to co-develop a national IHE policy that all institutions could identify with. The aim of ZIMCHE and the Ministry was to ultimately come up with a national policy framework that eventually includes the development of institutional policies and strategies and their operationalization, with the focus very much on intra and inter institutional collaborations to this end. This shows a purposeful move forward from the ad hoc approach to internationalization that is the key commonality across the various contexts. In the case of Kenya, IHE was used as a clear strategy to generate funds after the effects of the Structural Adjustment program. In the light of this, the chapter notes two key responses to internationalization: the development of internationalization strategies; and an ambition to achieve “World-class Status” embedded as part of the institutions’ mission statements. Several of the settings allude to the earlier argument that many of the universities in these contexts are “born international.” In the case of Ethiopia there appears to be a long history of what is now known as internationalization, although there is admittedly a limited understanding of what IHE really means because of a dearth of research. What exists as recognizable forms of internationalization can be traced back to the arrival of the missionaries and the introduction of Western education to the country. For Zimbabwe, the colonial legacies are quite recent and still quite visible, and therefore really inform the analysis of this chapter. The review of internationalization of higher education here is therefore undertaken with an awareness of the decolonial, with its various processes and strategies including regionalization and harmonization viewed using this lens. IHE was found to exist somewhat, because of strong links with its former colonizers, Britain. The Nigerian chapter actually argues that because many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have a history of colonization, their institutions can naturally be regarded as internationalized, since they inherited the machineries and processes of higher education.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

593

With all the universities reviewed in these contexts keen to develop partnerships with stronger universities in the Global North, as this is what is primarily considered as internationalization, there are strong (decolonial) warnings from Ghana and Kenya about the penchant to go seeking for funds and validation creating a new form of dependency, and especially the extent to which internationalization becomes a one-sided imposed external practice with eroding potentials. This warning is not baseless, given the global nature of higher education today, it is now legitimately viewed as a tradable commodity, and in many trades, there are often winners and losers. Borrowing from Tikly (2004), it can even be argued that internationalization is the new imperialism, incorporating lowincome countries previously subject to older forms of European imperialism into a new regime of global governance, which serves to secure the interests of Global North countries and global capitalism more generally. Maringe (2010) explains further this type of globalization and higher education using the “world systems theory,” which assumes that the world is divided into three broad areas with a core group of super rich nations who dictate to the rest of the world. Similarly in higher education, are the elite universities like the Ivy League in the United States and the Russell group in the UK, who rarely enter into any equal partnership with universities outside of their league. In fact, the argument is that some leading universities can be seen as neo-colonialists, seeking to dominate not for ideological or political reasons but for commercial gains. Maringe also highlights what he calls the “neo-liberal theory” of globalization, which is about free trade between countries based on free market principles—except that this is not freely occurring as someone is always in control of major decisions; that “someone” being organizations such as WTO (World Trade Organization) with GATS, World Bank etc. He adds that the same can be argued for higher education, with similar international organizations created to oversee key decisions and monitor quality for the rest of the world. So even within a free market, there are inherent inequalities, with some having more power than others. It then becomes clear that since we cannot really separate internationalization from globalization (especially its impact on higher education in developing countries), we need to pay particular attention to its underlying tensions, especially historical imbalances linked to Western colonization and dominance, which still persist cloaked in new terminologies. The Kenyan chapter especially starts with an acknowledgement of the challenges of internationalization and questions its promotion as an altruistic process. Thus, the continuing task here is the continual exploration of IHE in Sub-Saharan Africa, always setting it within the context of the historical, socio-political, and decolonial. It is also the continued questioning of the grand claim that internationalization of higher education always begets sustainable development at the individual, institutional, national, and global levels, using the various cases cited here as examples; especially the “taken-forgranted” that internationalization contributes to capacity building in Sub-Saharan Africa’s HEIs. It is this continual and continuous reflexive process that would allow HEIs in SSA to benefit from internationalization with sensitivity to their various complexities.

CONCLUSION It becomes clear that the major arguments made in the various chapters point to a need for a more critical examination of the ongoing processes of what is regarded as internationalization in these Sub-Saharan African countries. They certainly call for a more coherent national strategy in the various countries rather than what appears to be a

594

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

piecemeal and ad hoc strategy adopted by individual institutions, often not in conversation with each other. Further arguments are centered around the re-orientation of internationalization, especially in Africa and other developing contexts, with the need to be very strategic from the get-go. Perhaps more tailored with context in mind, rather than current attempts to play catch-up in an uneven playing field. The emergence of other countries such as China in the internationalization game points to a renewed “scramble for Africa,” and questions therefore need to be asked of the motives of these different actors—both old and emerging. For instance, have the research capacity and knowledge generation of the various institutions in all the various countries improved with internationalization so far? What will be the likely impact of internationalization in the long run in these contexts? Will they strengthen or erode the capacities of local institutions? Attempts to answer these questions will be the key to fully unveiling the face of internationalization in Sub-Saharan Africa. Also, given the links made between internationalization and globalization (with all its contentions), harder questions need to be asked of the internationalization project in African higher education—the role of neoliberal globalization as a form of global Western hegemony (Tikly, 2004) is one. Globalization contributes to a postcolonial education that glorifies Western education through portraying it as the universal best way of doing things says Shizha (2006). Any discussion of internationalization of higher education in the socalled Global South (itself a contentious term) must include an analysis of the deep inequalities that are part of the world system generally, both systemic and epistemic— coloniality of power and knowledge, specifically. With all of the above, three poignant issues become clear for policy implication in terms of IHE in the Global South context: 1. The urgent task of creating universities that are anchored socially, not only geographically, in Africa. 2. The need for “horizontal internationalization” as the first task leading to the creation of a Pan-African education system, before escalating our efforts into “vertical internationalization.” 3. The need to interrogate dominant concepts and models of internationalization and the possibility of an alternative internationalization politics in African higher education. The second issue above makes it quite clear that the argument is not about decoloniality being against internationalization, rather it is about encouraging African HEIs to link up first with themselves, then with other parts of the Global South, and then open up to the Global North. Universities have been established to have a political, economic, social, and cultural mission; a good understanding of global changes within these areas, Maringe and Foskett (2010) argue, will help shape both institutional response and strategy. For internationalization of African HEIs in particular, attention must be paid to the ways that higher education has been commoditized in service of the global neo-liberal machine and exactly where Africa fits in this behemoth. Is Africa sitting at the table or is Africa what is on the table? The potential and promise of internationalization to create more equitable relations cannot be achieved without a clearer understanding of all the fore-mentioned. While in many ways globalization can open access and make collaborations easier, in other ways existing inequalities can also be reinforced with new barriers erected.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

595

Models of internationalization moving forward must take into cognizance the globalization context within which internationalization processes are being developed and within which they invariably exist, with many universities in the so-called “Global South” still playing “catch-up” in a game where the rules are set by others and are constantly shifting; and where they are constantly trying to conform to Western performative ideals. While a hierarchy of knowledge production still exists, universities in Sub-Saharan Africa have no choice but to aspire to their standards. Ideations of internationalization must take into cognizance the evident exhaustion of “northern epistemologies,” and therefore privilege a new learning that is non-colonial; and open up the world to learning from the Global South. This is especially so as Africa and the rest of the so-called “Global South” constitute the majority of the world anyway.

REFERENCES Dzvimbo, K.P., and Moloi, K.C. (2013). Globalisation and the internationalization of higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. South African Journal of Education, 33(3). Jowi, J.O. (2012). African universities in the global knowledge economy: The good and the ugly of internationalization. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(1): 153–165. Mamdani, M. (1998). Is African Studies to be turned into a new home for Bantu Education at UCT? Social Dynamics: A Journal of African Studies, 24(2), 63–75. Maringe, F. (2010). The Meaning of globalization and internationalization in higher education: Findings from a world survey. In Maringe, F., and Foskett, N. (eds), Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical. Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Continuum International. Maringe, F. and Foskett, N. (eds) (2010). Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London, Continuum International. Maringe, F., Foskett, N., and Woodfield, S. (2013). Emerging internationalization models in an uneven global terrain: Findings from a global survey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1): 9–36. Mbembe, A.C. (2016). Decolonizing the university: New directions. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15(1): 29–45. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2013). Why decoloniality in the 21st century? The Thinker, 48: 10–15. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2018). Epistemic Freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and Decolonization. London and New York: Routledge. Nyerere, J.K. (1966). Freedom and Unity/Uhuru Na Ujoma. Dar Es Salaam: Oxford University Press. Olukoshi, A., and Zeleza, P.T. (2004). Introduction: The struggle for African universities and knowledges. In Zeleza, P.T., and Olukoshi, A. (eds), African Universities in the Twenty-First Century: Volume 1: Liberalization and Internationalization. Dakar: CODESRIA , pp. 1–18. Shizha, E. (2006). Legitimizing indigenous knowledge in Zimbabwe: A theoretical analysis of postcolonial school knowledge and its colonial legacy. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education, 1(1), https://doi.org/10.20355/C5RP4J Tikly, L. (2004). Education and the new imperialism. Comparative Education, 40(2): 173–198. Zeleza, P.T. (2005). Transnational education and African universities. Boston College and Council for the Development Social Science Research in Africa, 3(1): 1–28.

CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX

Salient Issues in the Internationalization of Higher Education in The Global South Concluding Observations JULIET THONDHLANA, EVEYLYN C. GARWE, AND HANS DE WIT

INTRODUCTION This concluding chapter uses a cross-case analysis of the twenty-four countries explored in this handbook to crystalize emerging issues and provide a comprehensive typology for Internationalization of Higher Education (IHE) in the the four regions: Global South (Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), North Africa and the Middle East (MENA), Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). This will go a long way in building upon the current National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Policies (NTEISP) typology described by de Wit et al. (see Chapter 3, this volume). This is in response to: (i) the clarion call for institutions, nations, and regions to position IHE strategically in order to derive its full benefits; (ii) the need for an analysis and typology for IHE inclusive of the hitherto “silent” contexts/nations of the Global South considering the diverse backgrounds, rationales, approaches, and priorities that would feed into policy formulation and strategy development for implementation, and (iii) the need to identify new directions for internationalization. As observed by Hegarty (2013: 931), “Producing a handbook in any domain of education is an ambitious task.” Certainly, doing so in internationalization of higher education with its dynamic nature, contestations, multiple frames of reference, and more so in the context of the Global South with its diverse and conflicting geo-political, conceptual, historical, and socio-economic terrains and dynamics is a complex endeavor. This handbook explores practices and also provides an IHE “mapping” of a selection of countries from each of the main Global South regions that can act as a key reference and starting point for information, argument, and inspiration for further work on this broad context. It provides an overview of policies, understandings, approaches, practices, and trends in diverse countries, some of which not much is known. In doing so it also presents 596

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

597

a general cross-cutting picture of the internationalization of higher education in the Global South, touching on what is already known about the field, vastly different situations, and also rich more nuanced accounts of specific contexts. These include perspectives about what has been achieved to date as well as some clarity and insights into what is yet to be done through identifying particular specificities, current weaknesses, knowledge gaps, and tensions needing to be addressed and offering recommendations for potentially productive pathways for future direction. One preliminary observation has to be made. This handbook was written before the Covid-19 crisis hit the world and higher education. The crisis placed all international dimensions of higher education at the forefront: international students, study abroad for credits, international partnerships and networks, international collaboration in research, internationalization for society, collaborative online international learning, and internationalization at home. The crisis demonstrates the risks and challenges related to internationalization abroad, but also provides new direction and opportunities for internationalization at home in teaching and learning and in research. Given that internationalization abroad over the past decades has had mainly a South to North direction, the challenges and potential implications for the North are manifest. The dependence on international students from the South is at serious risk and will have major financial and human capital implications for countries and their institutions of higher education in the North. The crisis will for sure also have serious financial implications for higher education in the South. But it also creates opportunities for higher education in the South, as it has been less dependent on international student revenue and study abroad, allowing a focus on internationalization at home and collaborative online international learning, as well as developing its own paradigms. At the time of writing this concluding chapter, it is too early to predict all the implications of Covid-19 for internationalization of higher education, but in our view this handbook and the concluding remarks in this chapter will provide a good foundation for the internationalization of higher education in the Global South, post Covid-19 crisis.

KEY EMERGING ISSUES Internationalization of higher education has taken root in the Global South with all the case countries exhibiting active engagement with the outside world, albeit in varying degrees. IHE has further diversified as evidenced by a noticeable global shift from largely looking North to increasingly looking South. This finding is consistent with contemporary literature which highlights the increasing importance by countries in the Global South as sources of knowledge and manpower development largely for fellow developing countries, thereby effectively taking over this role from the developed world (Cross, Mhlanga, and Ojo, 2011). Welch (Chapter 11, this volume) uses the example of Confucianism to argue that this signifies a renaissance, wherein contexts such as the Arab world, India, and China are bouncing back to their former glory as economic giants featuring centers of excellence in education, thereby attracting students and staff from across the globe. To buttress this point, Welsh uses the fact that currently over 60 of the top 500 global research universities are in the East, according to the 2019 league tables by the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Cognizant of the perceived (or real) uneven playing field in the global internationalization arena, Abdulrahman et al. (Chapter 35, this volume) argue that a cautious (decolonial) approach to IHE in the Global South, particularly in Africa, is critical as opposed to the

598

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

current attempts to play the catch-up game of importing foreign language, ideas, culture, and supposedly superior standards and forms of existence. The authors recommend that “horizontal internationalization” (connection of Global South nations with each other) should take precedence over “vertical internationalization” (interactions with countries in the Global North). If this accession holds true, then the contestations against the “look East” policy as an exemplar might appear as an enigma. African internationalization scholars have questioned the motives behind the shift to the East, perceiving it as another unwelcome “scramble for Africa” by emerging players with the potential to erode the capacities of local institutions. However, we view this as a clear indication of vigilance against what Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013) refers to as the trap of normalizing and universalizing coloniality as a natural state of the world. In the context of LAC, the Caribbean colonialism, in particular, is blamed for the fragmentation of the region into many small countries, and internationalization of higher education is seen as a viable tool for the much needed integrating the sub-region needs for sustainable development. The Global South thus generally views regionalization as a critical “subset of internationalization” (Sehoole and De Wit, 2014: 223), all regions conforming to Ndlovu-Gatsheni’s (2018) “horizontal first” approach. This is evident from the way all the four regions in the Global South highlighted the importance of regional cooperation and exchange, to strengthen their regional higher education space. In Asia-Pacific for example, the introduction of branch campuses, regional university agreements, and networks supported by quality assurance frameworks have resulted in quality research as well as teaching and learning and a surge in intra-regional student mobility. This emerging drive towards strengthening intra-regional collaboration and harmonization of higher education systems is consistent with the developments in the Global North. The LAC region has also exhibited a growing intra-regional focus in addition to inter-regional internationalization. In a bid to facilitate IHE, most countries in the Global South have adopted and promoted the use of English (and in some regions, e.g., SSA, LAC, MENA, also German, Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Arabic, Turkish, Persian) as the main or alternative language of instruction, instead of resisting it as would have been consistent with the de-colonization drive. In addition to promoting student and staff mobility, the use of English and other foreign languages enhances international collaboration in teaching and research. There is unanimity amongst all case countries in embracing a strategic approach to IHE because of its critical importance in advancing knowledge-based societies and for sustainable national development. Despite this awareness for developing and implementing harmonized national and institutional policies and strategies, very few of the case countries have these national policies in place. Many of the countries still approach IHE in a piecemeal, un-coordinated, and ad hoc way. Issues of colonial histories, economic problems, political turmoil, civil strife, and other local challenges result in resistance towards an ostensible “international” foreign perspective that perpetuates tensions between indigenization and globalization. To mitigate the potential harmful effects of internationalization, countries are in agreement that there should be a balanced interplay amongst issues of globalization, regionalization (e.g., Emiritization; Africanization), and nationalization. In addition, issues of decolonization, deracialization, and deimperialization are necessary for healthy international interdependence and mutual respect of sovereign nations. This is an important issue in the context of debates and discourses of “global coloniality” and the continuity of the “colonial power matrix” and

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

599

decolonization as an unfinished project (Quijano, 2000; Grosfoguel, 2007). De Wit (Dell, 2019) formulates it as follows for the African context: Africanisation should not be seen as opposite to internationalization but as two sides of the same coin. Exclusive focus on Africanisation would mean isolation while exclusive internationalization would imply ongoing dependency and copying of Western approaches to internationalization, not embedded in the local context.

NTEISP TYPOLOGY FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH We used the data from the twenty-four case countries in the four regions of the Global South explored in this handbook to populate the NTEISP framework, explained in Chapter 3 of this handbook. In superimposing and benchmarking the data against the NTEISP, we are aware that the handbook did not set out to provide a typology of IHE as described by De Wit et al (Chapter 3, this volume). In addition to a common general outline, our approach enabled each region and each case country to take a unique and specific focus rather than attempting to include every aspect of IHE. Given that all cases purposely included information on IHE with respect to understandings, agendas, challenges, strategies, theoretical and methodological developments, processes, as well as policy developments at national and institutional levels, it became possible to use the NTEISP framework. This typology provides a helpful framework for thinking about productive future directions for IHE in the Global South and its inevitable interaction with IHE in the Global North. Table 36.1 shows the mapping of national internationalization strategies for the Global South. The salient findings from the IHE mapping exercise in the Global South case countries are discussed below.

TRENDS FROM GLOBAL SOUTH COUNTRIES IN THE PREVIOUS NTEISP TYPOLOGY STUDY Eight of the twelve countries that were included in the NTEISP typology by de Wit et al. (Chapter 3, this volume) and also formed part of this analysis are Brazil, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, South Africa, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, and India. It is interesting to note that most of these countries have already moved on from their previous statuses. This finding may be attributed to the power of information dissemination in helping nations to make informed decisions on issues critical to national growth; for example, Ethiopia previously had no explicit focus on internationalization but this has since changed and the country now has a stand-alone policy for internationalization, as reported by Tamrat in Chapter 29 of this handbook entitled “Internationalization of higher education in Ethiopia: From a fragmented dispensation to a cohesive path.” In addition, the role of government/ ministries and higher education institutions in IHE is stronger than before. In terms of priority action lines, the country now has a stronger focus on: program and/or institutional mobility; research and publications collaboration; internationalization and information technology; and financing of internationalization. Even for countries like Brazil, Malaysia, South Africa, and India that already explicitly focus on internationalization, there has been positive movement towards a stronger focus on the existing IHE action lines

Global South region and case countries

x x

x x

x x

Nigeria

Zimbabwe

x x

Kenya

South Africa

x x

Ghana

Ethiopia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Palestine

x x

Tunisia

x x

Egypt

Libya

x x

Morocco

Jordan

x x

GCC region

x

North Africa and the Middle East

Mexico

x x

x

Colombia

x x

x

Chile

xx

Brazil

x x

India

x x

Malaysia

Korea

xx

Kazakhstan

Japan

Policy characteristics

Caribbean

Latin America and the Caribbean

Asia-Pacific

China

600

TABLE 36.1 Mapping national internationalization strategies for the Global South

x

x

x

Approaches to policy articulation • Implicit focus on IHE • Explicit focus on IHE

x

x x

xx

x

x

x x

xx

Approaches to policy formulation • Stand-alone policy for IHE • IHE policy embedded in a broader policy

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

xx

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

xx

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

xx

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Key actors • National governments/ministries xx

x x

• Non- or quasi-governmental actors • Higher education institutions

xx

x x

x x

x

• International organizations

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

xx

x

x

x x

x x x

x

x x

Geographic priorities • Explicit geographic focal points

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Priority action lines • Incoming student mobility

xx x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

• Outgoing student mobility

xx x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

xx

x x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

• Outgoing academic staff/faculty xx x mobility

x x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

• Incoming academic staff/faculty x mobility

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x x

xx

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

xx

x x

x x

x x

x x

• Visa and immigration processes • International student/faculty services

x x

x

x

x • Program and/or institutional mobility (includes cross-border x and transnational education, educational hubs, international branch campuses, joint and dual degrees, online delivery)

x x

x

• Research and publications collaboration

x x

x x

x

• Joint doctoral supervision

x x

• Partnerships, networks, and consortia

x x

x

x x

x

x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x x

xx

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Priority action lines

601

x x

x

x

xx

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

Global South region and case countries

x

• Internationalization at home

x x

x

x x

x

• Promoting teaching in non-local x languages x

x x

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

• Requiring or encouraging foreign language study or proficiency

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

• Leveraging diaspora and/or returnees

x x

x x

x x

• Enhancing quality and/or x aspiring to international quality x standards • Aiming to develop world-class universities

x x

• Internationalization training

x

• Internationalization and the role xx of ICTs

x x

x x

x

x x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

xx

xx

xx xx

x

x x

x

x

x xx

Nigeria

x

Kenya

Ethiopia

Palestine

Tunisia

Egypt

Morocco

Libya

x

x

x x x

x

Ghana

x

Zimbabwe

x

South Africa

x x

Jordan

Mexico

• Internationalization of the curriculum

x

x

GCC region

North Africa and the Middle East Sub-Saharan Africa

Colombia

Chile

Caribbean

India

Malaysia

Kazakhstan

Korea

Japan

Policy characteristics

Brazil

Latin America and the Caribbean

Asia-Pacific

China

602

TABLE 36.1 Continued

xx

x

x

x

• Intercultural competence • Decolonization

xx

xx

x

x

xx x

x

xx

x

x xx

xx

x

* Note: An “xx” designation denotes that this specific policy characteristic is especially “strong” or evident in the particular NTEISP or national context. ** Note: The shaded areas in italics indicate emerging priority action lines that were added to the NTEISP typology by de Wit et al., Chapter 3 of this handbook.

-

603

604

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

including adopting new activities. This further buttresses Cr˘aciun’s (2018) assertion that, when governments strategically position IHE at national level in the form of cohesive policies, IHE activities and outcomes will be enhanced at institutional, national, regional, and international levels.

Approaches to Policy Articulation and Policy Formulation Of the twenty-four case countries, twenty (excluding Palestine, Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria) have explicit IHE policies. The quest to enhance the quality of higher education for national development and global competitiveness features among the reasons for developing and implementing the IHE policies. Six of these twenty countries have a stand-alone IHE policy while the other fourteen have it embedded in broader education policies. The four countries without explicit IHE policies cite political instability, socioeconomic challenges, and civil unrest as the major reasons for this state of affairs. In the case of Nigeria, Oyewole (Chapter 34, this volume) concedes that: “Nigeria has one of the largest higher education systems in Africa with over 800 tertiary institutions. . . . Nigeria is therefore expected to be a model of internationalization in the continent. Unfortunately, the level of internationalization in Nigeria’s institutions is rather low. . . . As of today, there is no national framework for internationalization of higher education in Nigeria.” For Ghana, Gyamera (Chapter 32, this volume) notes: “Until November, 2018, Ghana had no comprehensive national policy on Higher Education. Subsequently, there was no comprehensive national policy on International Higher Education (IHE) to regulate and direct internationalization. . . . In 2019, a comprehensive Higher Education policy, developed in 2018, was launched . . . but did not transcend into a comprehensive policy on international education.” Oanda (Chapter 33, this volume) reports “the lack of a coherent national government policy to moderate institutional practices to the advantage of Kenya in a context where the commercial and political imperatives of internationalization would be the overriding motivation from external partners.”

Key Actors National governments are leading actors for IHE with the exception of Korea, the Caribbean, Palestine, and Nigeria in all countries. In all countries higher education institutions are strong actors although in countries where policies do not exist or where policy coordination is weak, some higher education institutions are doing much more than others. While in ten of the countries non- or quasi-governmental actors are indicated to play a role in IHE, only Zimbabwe mentions these to play a critical role, citing the key role played by the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education (ZIMCHE—a national quality assurance agency) and its international partners in the development and implementation of the internationalization of higher and tertiary education policy framework. Garwe et al. (Chapter 31, this volume) note: In this regard the role of a respected, trusted, as well as strategically positioned body such as ZIMCHE, in terms of its overseeing mandate of HEIs and its links with the responsible Ministry as well as other related sectors, has been critical for success. ZIMCHE has been able to access HEIs in the scoping sample, interview high-profile staff, and mobilize HEIs to productively participate in the project.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

605

Similarly, in fourteen of the countries international organizations play a role in IHE with only Tunisia mentioning them as strong players.

Geographical Focus Points Ten of the twenty-four countries (China, Japan, Malaysia, India, Brazil, Caribbean, GCC region, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe) indicated that they provide explicit geographical focus points with a growing South–South trend in addition to the traditional South– North orientation. The absence of mention of explicit geographical focus points by the other fourteen countries does not necessarily indicate that these are not in existence. It might point to the fact that, as earlier indicated, this handbook did not deliberately set out to provide a “common” typology of IHE, hence authors might simply not have prioritized the mentioning of this particular issue.

Mobility of Staff and Students Almost all countries have a strong focus on outgoing mobility whilst the focus on incoming mobility is emerging but stronger in Asia-Pacific countries (China, Japan, Korea, India, and Malaysia) as well as in South Africa, GCC Region (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar), Ethiopia, Egypt, and Tunisia. Destinations that are attractive to students and academics include: China, Japan, Korea, India, and Malaysia, which are seen as emerging economic giants; and Egypt and Tunisia, due to their geographical positioning close to Europe. In addition to economic stability, deliberate policies to attract students and staff explain the emergence of South Africa as a major destination for regional/ international students and academics/faculty. The majority of IHE strategies in the case countries focus on student mobility, with limited focus on academic/faculty mobility. Program and/or institutional mobility was quite strong in China, Japan, India, GCC region, Egypt, Tunisia, and Ethiopia with emerging presence in Malaysia, Chile, Mexico, Jordan, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria.

Partnerships and Collaborations Partnerships in teaching and learning, as well as in research and publications collaboration, were evident in almost all countries except probably in the few that did not mention them by omission. Partnerships and collaborations were mentioned in the form of memoranda of understanding/agreement as well as South–South and South–North networks and consortia. In the case of Egypt, for example, largely because of its strategic positioning in relation to Europe, Asia, Africa, etc., it: is actively participating in such international organizations and programs as: UNESCO; OECD; USAID and Fulbright; TEMPUS; Erasmus Mundus and Erasmus+; DAAD of Germany; British Council UK; JAICA of Japan; the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization—ALECSO; the Islamic States Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—ISESCO; and the Africa–EU strategic partnership, Tuning Africa. . . . Egypt has also established “bilateral cooperation with universities in the EU countries, Arab world, Africa, USA, Canada, countries in Asia and all over the world” and its universities are members of several regional and international networks, including the Association of Arab Universities and the Universities of the Mediterranean. —Bekele and Ibrahim, Chapter 24, this volume

606

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CURRICULUM Internationalization at home and of the curriculum is rather limited across all regions with ten of the twenty-four case countries making mention of it mostly by indicating awareness of the need to internationalize the curriculum. There is however no clarity whether this translates into actual understanding and practice of internationalizing the curriculum. This point notwithstanding, China has a strong focus on internationalizing its curriculum. As Han and Shen (Chapter 5, this volume) note: “Higher Education Institutions in China have gradually revised their curriculum design, adopting English as the teaching language to help students become competitive globally.” But primarily focusing on the use of English as the teaching language is a very limited form of internationalizing the curriculum, even to the extent that it might be counter-productive from a Global South perspective.

ISSUES ADDED TO THE NTEISP TYPOLOGY The additional issues emerging from the mapping exercise that were not in the NTEISP framework described by De Wit et al. (Chapter 3, this volume) are internationalization training, internationalization and the role of ICT, intercultural competence, and decolonization. These are discussed below.

Intercultural Competence All chapters show an awareness of the importance of the intercultural aspect in internationalization of higher education. Indeed, the key definitions of internationalization cited by the authors position the intercultural dimension as being criterial to internationalization, thereby underscoring the critical need to pay attention to intercultural competence for all stakeholders, particularly students, to realize genuine internationalization experiences. Yet the complexity of this key aspect is often neglected and, as is highlighted in the Malaysia chapter: The common assumption is that. . . . students acquire intercultural and international competencies naturally if they study or complete their internship abroad or take part in an international class (Knight, 2011). In reality, it is more complicated. International students can completely seclude themselves from sharing experiences with other students and other sections of the population. As research findings have shown, some international students do not integrate easily and are inclined to seek the company of their compatriots. Students also tend to seclude themselves from sharing experiences with other sections of the population and therefore exclude themselves from the culture. —Azman and Da Wan, Chapter 9, this volume The chapter further notes how lecturers experience difficulties building on their students’ cultural diversity and knowledge to create an environment conducive for knowledge exchange and international experience. In addition, policymakers and institutions do not evidence intercultural competence/internationalization foci in their curricula.

Internationalization Training Given the challenges of gaining intercultural competencies raised above, the issues of strengthening the capacities of academics and students were highlighted in four chapters.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

607

We found this to be an important aspect of internationalization and quality assurance (De Wit and Knight, 1999). Gacel-Ávila (Chapter 12, this volume) sees the training of teachers as “a strategic imperative to promote relevant and quality learning in the twenty-first century . . . to offer students an education that enables them as competent citizens and professionals, involved in the development of their communities, country, and the world at large . . . which in turn require substantive transformations in the ways and means of teaching, learning and training.” In addition, is the issue of training for mobility to prepare students for a productive and successful international academic experience.

Decolonization Much of the Global South has had a colonial experience with some contexts among our cases such as South Africa and Zimbabwe having emerged from colonial rule more recently. It is perhaps not surprising that the issue of decolonization strongly features in SSA chapters while it is hinted at in some LAC (specifically the Caribbean) chapters. The knotty issue here is on the role of internationalization in the reintegration of a sub-region torn apart by colonialism. Notwithstanding, the issue of decoloniality and related coloniality is increasingly being debated in the context of internationalization as issues of knowledge ownership, production, distribution, and related topics are debated. These issues are important in the context of debates and discourses of “global coloniality” and the continuity of the “colonial power matrix” and decolonization as an unfinished project (Quijano, 2000; Grosfoguel, 2007). The concluding chapter of the SSA region aptly summarizes the critical need to pay attention to these debates in the process of internationalizing universities in the Global South, and Africa in particular: While in many ways globalization can make access and collaborations easier, in other ways existing inequalities can also be reinforced with new barriers erected. Models of internationalization moving forward must take into cognizance the globalization context within which internationalization processes are being developed and within which they invariably exist—with many universities in the so-called “Global South” still playing “catch-up” in a game where the rules are set by others and are constantly shifting; and where they are constantly trying to conform to Western performative ideals. —Abdulrahman et al., Chapter 35, this volume Some of the chapters such as the Zimbabwe and Ghana ones see internationalization as having a transformational aspect, which gives it some decolonial effects especially with curriculum redesign and indigenization. This is the greatest strength and possibility that internationalization presents when viewed as a decolonial project, a task which is not easy because the role of many African universities in the global knowledge economy is precarious at best. In addition to the many structural and systemic challenges that they have to deal with, they also must contend with the other complexities of internationalization.

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Internationalization and information technology was specifically noted by some of the chapters as being critical to make internationalization work, partly for obvious reasons of distance learning, which is a focus for some universities, but also as a strategy to facilitate

608

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

internationalization in strife-torn, crises contexts such as Libya which makes them unattractive to students and academics, and also where outbound traveling may be a challenge. Certainly the current threat of Covid-19 to mobility as we have come to know it has brought virtual mobility and the role of technology to the fore if IHE is to maintain its gains so far and develop into the future.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS This handbook focused on a wide range of contexts from the four Global South regions, namely: Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The handbook has contributed in furthering our understanding of the developments, trends, and complexities of internationalization in the Global South. Some of the chapters provide cutting-edge knowledge of IHE and suggestively point to future developments by highlighting both challenges to overcome and pathways to follow. While inevitably a handbook of this nature can only focus on selected countries in each region, the cases were carefully selected to be representative of the regions at large. In addition, cross-cutting chapters providing more wide-ranging information on the regions presented. This creates possibilities for intra-regional and inter-regional comparisons as well as comparisons with the Global North in a way that enables a more holistic understanding of IHE. The handbook thus lays the groundwork for future research to develop the topic further given the constant and rapid changes in the contemporary environment that requires our understandings of IHE to be “emergent, contingent and necessarily situated” (Trahar, Green, de Wit, and Whitsed, 2015: 36). The findings of the cross-country analysis of twenty-four different Global South contexts reveal a generalizable trend towards a strategic approach in defining IHE policies at national and at institutional levels to refocus IHE “from the periphery to centre stage” (Cr˘aciun, 2018: 8). The NTEISP framework provided a systematic way of analyzing, making comparisons and deductions from data presented from different geo-political, historical, and socio-economic contexts; methodological developments; outcomes of IHE and other forces shaping internationalization. We were therefore able to build on the NTEISP framework to include issues that were not evident in the cases reviewed before. Our study therefore highlights and recommends further use and development of the NTEISP typology as a common comparative framework in future IHE studies of a similar nature. Overall, we conclude that in the Global South, IHE continues to gather momentum as evidenced by the increased awareness of the need not only to use a strategic approach to it but also to be guided by the use of contextual lenses, for example the “decolonial” lenses suggested by Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013). In addition, the trend towards enhancing regionalization and South–South cooperation shows a shift from the “copying and pasting” of the Western IHE paradigm and the strong propensity to “vertical internationalization” described by Jones and de Wit (2014).

REFERENCES Cr˘aciun, D. (2018). Topic modelling: A novel method for the systematic study of higher education internationalization policy. In Rumbley, L., and Proctor, D. (eds), The Future Agenda for Internationalization in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 102–113.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

609

Cross, M., Mhlanga, E., and Ojo, E., 2011. Emerging concept of internationalisation in South African higher education: Conversations on local and global exposure at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(1): 75–92. De Wit, H.D., and Knight, J.A. (1999). Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Dell, S. (2019). Internationalization—Making it work for Africa. In University World News, August 23, 2019. Grosfoguel, R. (2007). The epistemic decolonial turn. Beyond political-economy paradigms. Cultural Studies, 21(2/3): 211–223. Hegarty, S. (2007). Special education and its contribution to the broader discourse of education. In Florian, L. (ed.), The Sage Handbook of Special Education. London: Sage Publications, pp. 528–536. Jones, E., and de Wit, H. (2014). Globalized internationalization: Implications for policy and practice. IIEnetworker, Spring, 28–29. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2013). Why decoloniality in the 21st century? The Thinker, 48: 10–15. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2018). Epistemic Freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and Decolonization. London and New York: Routledge. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepentla: Views from the South, 1(3): 533–580. Sehoole, C., and de Wit, H. (2014). The regionalisation, internationalization, and globalisation of African higher education. International Journal of African Higher Education, 1(1): 217–241. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi. org/10.6017/ijahe.v1i1.5648 Trahar, S., Green, W., de Wit, H., and Whitsed, C. (2015). The internationalization of higher education. In Case, J.M. and Huisman, J. (eds), Researching Higher Education. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 23–41.

CONTRIBUTORS

EDITORIAL TEAM Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila is Professor-Researcher and Associate Dean for Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Guadalajara, Mexico. Considered a world expert for Latin America on internationalization of higher education, she is General Coordinator of the UNESCO Regional Observatory on Internationalisation of Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean. She speaks French, Spanish, English, and German. Evelyn C. Garwe is an Associate Professor and Deputy Chief Executive Officer at the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education. She has twenty-eight years’ experience in the quality assurance and strategic management of academic and developmental programs. Her research interests are in higher education. Futao Huang is Professor in the Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University. He taught and conducted research in several Chinese universities before he went to Japan in 1999. His main academic interests include the internationalization of higher education, the academic profession, designing university curriculum, and comparative study of higher education between China and Japan. Wondwosen Tamrat is an associate professor and founding president of St Mary’s University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He is an affiliate scholar of the Program for Research on Private Higher Education (PROPHE), headquartered at the State University of New York at Albany, United States. He is also the coordinator of the private higher education sub-cluster set up under the Africa Union’s Continental Education Strategy of Africa (CESA). Juliet Thondhlana is Associate Professor in Education and Migration in the School of Education at the University of Nottingham. Her teaching is in international education. She has researched internationalization of higher education in the UK and Zimbabwe and has co-led the development of a national internationalization policy framework for Zimbabwe. Hans de Wit is Director of the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) at Boston College, United States, and professor of the practice in International Higher Education at the Department of Educational Leadership and Higher Education of the Lynch School of Education, Boston College. He is Program director, Master of Arts in International Higher Education. THEMATIC CHAPTERS Daniela Cra˘ciun is currently a PhD student at the Central European University (Hungary). Her research interests lie in the area of higher education public policy. Her doctoral dissertation explores the topic of internationalization in higher education, proposing the 610

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

611

construction of a typology of national policies for internationalization. She is also interested in issues of conceptualization and computer assisted content analysis. Georgiana Mihut is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Ireland. She received her PhD in Higher Education from Boston College. Georgiana held appointments with multiple organizations, including the Boston College Centre for International Higher Education, the World Bank, and the American Council on Education. Laura E. Rumbley is Associate Director, Knowledge Development & Research for the European Association for International Education (EAIE). She was previously associate director of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), where she remains a research fellow, and is a co-editor of the Journal of Studies in International Education. Ayenachew Woldegiyorgis has just completed his PhD at the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), Boston College. He has previously served as a faculty member at Addis Ababa University (Ethiopia) and as a consultant for the World Bank (Washington, DC). ASIA PACIFIC Norzaini Azman is Professor of Higher Education at the Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. She is also an Associate Research Fellow at the National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN). She is currently serving as the 2017–2019 Chair/ President of the Malaysian Society for Research and Higher Education (HE) Policy Development (PenDaPaT). Her main research interests include policy and governance of higher education, the academic profession, HE, and sustainability and leadership in HE. She has collaborated with the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysian Higher Education Leadership Academy, International Educational Planning, Paris; the Asian Development Bank, SEMEO-RIHED and UNESCO Bangkok and the MalaysiaAustralia Institute in various research projects. She has published books on academic leadership, academic mobility and succession planning in the Malaysian university system, and contributed several chapters and articles on higher education policies, the academic profession, and academic leadership in local and international journals and books. Xiao Han’s research interests concentrate on transnational higher education, policy analysis (implementation), sociology of education, and social inequity. She has published several articles in international peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Education Policy, Globalisation, Societies & Education, Policy and Society, Higher Education Policy and Management, International Journal of Comparative Education and Development. She is also a reviewer for Higher Education and Educational Research for Policy and Practice. Sunwoong Kim holds a PhD in Economics and Urban Planning from M.I.T. He has published more than sixty articles, several books, and numerous policy reports on housing, education, politics, and international relations. He has served as the President of the Korea-America Economic Association (2010) and the President of the Korean American University Professor Association (2007–2013), and was the Co-Editor of the International Economic Journal (2003–2015).

612

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Aliya Kuzhabekova holds a PhD in Educational Policy, Administration and Management from the United States and is currently an Associate Professor at Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan. She has over ten years of interdisciplinary and collaborative research experience as a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Minnesota. Her main research interests are related to gender, work–life balance, international mobility, and intersectionality. She has published over twenty-five articles in peer-reviewed journals, and edited volumes and served as a Principal Investigator (PI) on five funded research projects with budgets up to USD 150,000. Wenqin Shen is an Associate Professor of higher education at the graduate school of education, Peking University, China. He received his BA in 2003 and a PhD in 2008, both from PKU. He was a visiting Scholar at UW-Madison for the academic year 2013–14. His research interests include history of higher education (history of the idea of liberal education and history of the field of higher education research), the quality of research training and graduate education, student mobility and internationalization of higher education. His research has been published in international journals such as Higher Education, Higher Education Quarterly, History of Education Quarterly, European Journal of Higher Education, and the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. Julie Vardhan is an academician with more than seventeen years of international experience, encompassing both academics and industry. She was associated for around a decade with a University in Dubai and is currently associated with Amity University Jharkhand. Possessing a Doctorate in Business Administration (DBA) from SMC University Switzerland, she has contributed several articles and chapters in renowned academic journals. Her research interests include entrepreneurship, sustainable marketing, and higher education. She aspires to work on making individuals and businesses more sustainable and better enabled for the good of everyone. Chang Da Wan is Senior Lecturer at the National Higher Education Research Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia. His main research interest includes higher education policy and practice, specifically on issues of governance and management, access and equity, doctoral education, the academic profession and internationalization. He has been involved in several research and consultancy projects with UNESCO-Bangkok, OECD, Commonwealth Tertiary Education Facility (CTEF), Asia Pacific Higher Education Research Partnership (APHERP) Research Cluster, the Head Foundation, Bait al-Amanah, the Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT), and the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. He was a team member of the Higher Education Strategic Plan Review Committee to review the Malaysian National Higher Education Strategic Plan. Chang Da is also a Life Member of the Malaysian Society for Higher Education Policy and Research Development (PenDaPaT) and an Affiliate Member of Young Scientists Network-Academy of Sciences Malaysia. Anthony R. Welch is Professor of Education, University of Sydney. His numerous publications address education reforms, principally within Australia, and the Asia-Pacific, and mainly on higher education. An advisor to state, national, and international agencies, governments, institutions, and foundations in Australia, Europe, East, Central, and Southeast Asia and the United States, his project experience is largely in higher education. His work appears in numerous languages, both European and Asian, and he has been Visiting Professor in the United States, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, Malaysia, and Hong Kong (China). A Fulbright New Century Scholar (2007–8), DAAD Scholar and

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

613

Haiwai Mingshi awardee (inter alia), recent books include The Professoriate: Profile of a Profession (Springer 2005), Education, Change and Society (Oxford, 4th ed., 2017), ASEAN Industries and the Challenge from China (Palgrave, 2011), and Higher Education in South East Asia (Routledge, 2011). He was a consultant to the ADB project Higher Education in Dynamic Asia, was part of the international team to develop Myanmar’s first Comprehensive Education Sector Review in twenty years, and directed the ARC project, The Chinese Knowledge Diaspora (with Rui Yang). LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Giovanni Anzola-Pardo has a PhD in Development Studies from the Nelson Mandela University (Port Elizabeth, South Africa), a master’s degree in Education, Specialist in University Teaching, and a BA in Education (Spanish and English). He is Fellow of the Institute for International Education of the US Department of State. He studied Project Management under the University Leadership Program at the University of Oldenburg (Germany) as a DAAD scholar, Cambridge ESOL examiner through the British Council. He has served as Secretary General for the Colombian region before the International Organization for Higher Education and as Executive Secretary of the International Association of La Salle Universities. He is currently the Director of International Affairs at Universidad Externado—Colombia. He has attended and presented at several workshops and conferences on themes related to HE internationalization (NAFSA, EAIE, GOING GLOBAL, CAIE) and has actively participated in the organization of the Latin American and Caribbean Conference on Internationalization of Higher Education in Colombia (LACHEC) and served as a member of the Steering Committee of the network of high-quality accredited universities CCYK ®. Among his recent publications, he is co-author on the book Reflexiones para la Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en Colombia by the Colombian Ministry of Education and the Observatory of Science and Technology, a series of guides for the internationalization of higher education in Colombia, and the inbound mobility report of US students to Colombia. Andrés Bernasconi is Professor at the School of Education of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, and director of its Center of Advanced Studies on Educational Justice. Bernasconi has conducted research on Chilean and Latin American higher education and has taught or carried out research or consulting work on higher education administration and policy in various countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. He is currently interested in higher education law and regulation, university governance, and organizational change in institutions of higher education. He holds degrees from the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Harvard University, and Boston University. Javier González is Director of SUMMA, the Laboratory of Education Research and Innovation for Latin America and the Caribbean, founded by the Inter-American Development Bank in 2016. He is also an Affiliated Lecturer at the Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge. He has been senior consultant to UNESCO, The World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and OXFAM, among other international institutions. He has been Cabinet Advisor on Education and Innovation Policy to the Chilean Ministry of Finance, Executive Secretary to the Ministers’ Council for Advanced Human Capital Formation, and Director of Studies at the Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT). He has also been a researcher at the Ministry of Education of Chile, where he was involved in the design and implementation

614

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

of education policies. He holds a bachelor’s and a master’s degree of Economics from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. He also has a master’s degree and a PhD in Development Studies from the University of Cambridge. Annette Insanally is former Secretary General of the Association of Caribbean Universities and Research Institutions (UNICA 2010–2017); Founder and Director of the Latin American-Caribbean Centre (LACC 1990–2016) of the University of the West Indies (The UWI). Currently she consults for IESALC-UNESCO on matters relating to the Caribbean Higher Education sector. As UNICA Secretary General, she ensured the active inclusion of the full diversity of Caribbean universities in the regional agenda for the creation of a Higher Education Common Knowledge Space. Consequently, UNICA became part of the network of Latin American and Ibero-American Associations of Universities and Councils of Rectors, inter alia, CORPUCA, UDUAL, CUIB, CONAHEC, IAU, OUI, OEI, ANUIES, ADRU, and the CELAC–EU integration process. As LACC Director, she spearheaded various regional bilateral cooperation projects, resulting in the formalization of partnerships among Universities in Latin America and the Caribbean and the promotion of strategies to ensure sustainable internationalization practice. This included student and staff mobility resourced through the negotiation of scholarships, internships, and teaching assistantships; the coordination of conferences and training seminars; and the development of research networks and joint multidisciplinary academic programs. She has coordinated a series of seminars on Caribbean–Central American migration and has a publication on the subject. She continues to actively promote measures for reducing language barriers within the region. Luz Inmaculada Madera is Vice-President of APEC University in the Dominican Republic since 2001, responsible for the internationalization and national outreach management. She has served as Consultant for the Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science and Culture (OIS), the European Union (EU), World Bank (WB), the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), the Spanish Ortega y Gasset Research Center, the University of Alicante (Projects INCA and TIES), the Institute of Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC-UNESCO/ CRES 2018), the Ministry of Education of the Dominican Republic (MINERD) and Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Dominican Republic (MESCyT). She has presented at conferences and delivered courses on internationalization and university cooperation in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, and North Africa. She currently collaborates with the Regional Observatory on Internationalisation and Networks in Tertiary Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (OBIRET) as an associate researcher and has various publications on the subject of internationalization with an emphasis on Latin America and the Caribbean. Francisco Marmolejo is since February 2020, Education Advisor of Qatar Foundation, based in Doha, Qatar. At QF, he provides technical support and advice to the office of the Chairperson on the wide array of educational initiatives of the Foundation. From July 16 to February 2020 he was based in Delhi, India, where also he supported higher education initiatives of the Bank in other South Asian countries. From 2012 until November 2018, he served as Lead of the Global Solutions Group on Tertiary Education at the World Bank. From 1995 to 2012, he served as founding Executive Director of the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration, a network of more than 160 tertiary education institutions primarily from Canada, the United States and Mexico,

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

615

based at the University of Arizona (UA), where he also worked as Assistant Vice President. At UA, he was Affiliated Researcher at the Center for the Study of Higher Education, and Affiliate Faculty at the Center for Latin American Studies. Previously, he was an American Council on Education (ACE) Fellow at the University of Massachusetts, and also he has been Vice President for Administration and Academic Vice President at the University of the Americas in Mexico. He has worked as International Consultant at the headquarters of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, France, and has been part of OECD and World Bank peer review higher education teams in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. He has served on advisory boards and committees at a variety of universities and organizations, including the International Association of Universities, the American Council on Education’s Commission on International Initiatives, NAFSA, World Education Services, the Lumina Foundation for Education, and the Centre for Internationalisation of Higher Education at UNICATT-Milan. He has received honorary doctorate degrees from his Alma Mater, the University of San Luis Potosi (UASLP) and the University of Guadalajara in Mexico. He served as NAFSA Senior Fellow during 2018–2019. Francisca Puyol is a researcher at the Master in Sociology of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (PUC). Currently, she collaborates in the “Núcleo Milenio Experiencias de los estudiantes en Educación superior” (NMEDSUP). Her research interests are mainly focused on social inequalities and higher education. Renée Zicman is Professor in the School of Social Sciences at Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo–PUC-SP (1980–2017). She has published books and articles on the internationalization of higher education and religious movements. She was Consultant in Internationalization of Higher Education and presenter at conferences around the world. She has been named Officier (Officer, 2012) and Chevalier (Knight, 2002) of the Order of the Palmes Académiques by the French Ministry of National Education. She has served as Director for International Affairs at PUC-SP (1994–2012) and Vice-President of the Franco-Brazilian Center of Technical and Scientific Documentation and the Campus France Agency in Brazil (2010–2015). She earned BAs in History and Architecture, a master’s and a PhD in History from the Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne. In the last thirty years she has been very active in the field of internationalization of higher education and involved in a variety of programs and projects in the Brazilian national internationalization strategy. She is the Executive-Director of the Brazilian Association for International Education–FAUBAI (since 2013). NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST Salem Malood Abodher is a lecturer on Management, Psychology, and Education policy at the University of Gharyan, Libya. His areas of specialization are psychological studies, management planning, and strategy, globalization and higher education policy, with a special interest in ICT. Aref Al Attari is currently Professor of Educational Sciences—Faculty of Education— Yarmouk University, Jordan. Previously he worked at Sultan Qaboos University Oman and International Islamic University Malaysia. He has provided academic consultancies to Sun-Yat-Sen University PRC, the ESESCO, and other agencies. He has also been External Examiner of PhD theses written in Australian, Malaysian, and Arab universities. He has

616

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

published articles in English and Arabic refereed journals and papers in international conferences proceedings, and co-authored five books. Abdellah Benahnia is an international researcher and writer on education and cultural issues. He is a winner of the 2012 International Award in Educational Leadership in New Delhi. He is a US graduate in Curriculum and Instruction and Teaching Methods in higher education, with a minor in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning from WVU, United States. His doctoral dissertation is about the educational reform policies in Morocco. He holds an MA in TESOL/Linguistics (double major) from the same university. He has also worked as a Cultural Representative of Morocco at Walt Disney World in Florida. Teklu Abate Bekele is Associate Professor of International and Comparative Education at the Graduate School of Education, the American University in Cairo. He teaches graduate courses in globalization and education, educational development and multilateralism, and policy making and policy analysis. Bekele’s current research explores emerging university society engagements and linkages. Bola Ibrahim is an educationalist and a researcher in higher education policy and development. Ibrahim has been consulting for ten years on projects in multilateral organizations. Ibrahim has a BA in Law from Ain Shams University and an MA in International and Comparative Education from the American University in Cairo. Mohamed Salah Harzallah is Associate Professor of Cultural Studies at the University of Sousse, Tunisia. He is an external evaluator of EU Higher Education projects and is also a capacity building higher education trainer. Further, he is former director of the Erasmus Office of Tunisia. Kamel Mansi is Research Fellow in the School of Education at University of Nottingham, UK. He is currently working on managing large-scale projects on the Research Translation and Capacity Strengthening Project, which aims to translate the research outputs from Malawi and elsewhere to practices to reduce micronutrient deficiencies in Zimbabwe. Kamel has previously worked as Assistant Professor for the University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia and has led two research projects: students’ engagement in university activities and learning environment. Kamel is also interested in clinical trials, quantitative and qualitative research, as well as statistics. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Hadiza Kere Abdulrahman is lecturer in Inclusive Education at Bishop Grosseteste University in the UK. She researches around the issue of Knowledge/Education and its various contestations, particularly how colonial(ism/ity) shapes the narratives regarding Knowledge/Education in postcolonial societies; and its effects on people. Gifty Oforiwaa Gyamera teaches at the School for Public Service and Governance of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA). Her PhD studies focused on internationalization in the public universities in Ghana. Her interests include internationalization in education, African studies, curriculum development, policy analyses, and formulation and gender.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

617

Simon McGrath is UNESCO Chair in International Education and Development at the University of Nottingham and Extraordinary Professor at the University of the Western Cape. He has worked for nearly thirty years on educational research, evaluation, and policy work on education and development, particularly in the Southern African region. Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni is Professor/Chair of Epistemologies of the Global South with Emphasis on Africa at the University of Bayreuth in Germany. He previously worked as Research Professor in the Department of Leadership and Transformation (DLT) in the Principal and Vice-Chancellor’s Office at the University of South Africa. He has published extensively in the fields of African history, African studies, and decolonial studies. His latest major publications are Epistemic Freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and Decolonization (Routledge, July 2018) and Decolonization, Development and Knowledge in Africa: Turning Over A New Leaf (Routledge, May 2020). Ibrahim Ogachi Oanda works as a senior program officer and head of the Training, Grants and Fellowships program at CODESRIA, a Pan-African Social Science Research Council headquartered in Dakar Senegal. Before his current appointment, Oanda served the Council as program officer researcher (June 2015–June 2016). He joined CODESRIA from Kenyatta University, Kenya where he taught as Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Foundations. His academic background is in the area of Higher Education and Sociology of Knowledge and has he pursued research interests in a broad range of issues in African higher education. From 2013–2016, Oanda coordinated the Kenyan component of a British Council-funded project on “Higher Education and Graduate Employability in Africa.” He is currently involved in a research network on “Higher Education, Inequality and the Public Good” in four African countries funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, ESRC of the UK and the National Research Foundation (NRF) South Africa. Oanda has published a number of journal articles and book chapters on issues of higher education in Africa. Olusola Bandele Oyewole is former Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta. He served as a Senior Expert (Quality Assurance, Mobility and Scholarships) at the Department of Human Resources, Science and Technology of the African Union Commission in Ethiopia, Addis-Ababa, from 2009 to 2010. Prior to coming over to the African Union Commission, Prof. Oyewole was the Coordinator of the British Government-sponsored project on the “Mobilization of Regional Initiatives for the Revitalization of Higher Education in Africa” at the Association of African Universities (AAU), Accra, Ghana, from 2007 to 2009. His assignment involved promotion and management of African continental research networking and research programs for development. He has also served as the Project Officer of the World Bank project on “Quality Assurance for African Higher Education systems” at the Association of African Universities (2006–2009). Rakgadi Phatlane’s current work involves student recruitment, transformation, and monitoring in the office of the Dean at the University of Pretoria. Her PhD study focused on education policy. She is a multi-skilled and experienced researcher and manager within the education field.

618

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Chika T. Sehoole is Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of Pretoria. He previously held the positions of Chief Director: Higher Education Policy and Development Support, and Chief Director: Higher Education Planning and Management Support at the National Department of Education. Professor Sehoole has published extensively in the field of higher education and is an expert in the field of the internationalization of higher education. Between June 2013 and June 2014 he served on a task team of the Council on Higher Education, which conducted a twenty-year review of the status of higher education in South Africa. Between 2012 and 2013 he participated in a research initiative of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), which focused on governance in higher education. An NRF-rated scientist, he maintains a number of active research collaborations nationally and internationally. He has been involved in various outreach projects in local communities.

INDEX

The letter f following an entry indicates a page that includes a figure. The letter t following an entry indicates a page that includes a table. AAU (Association of African Universities) 542 Abdel-Ghaffar, K. 389 Abdulrahman, H.K. 597–8 Abodher, S. 346, 353 Abodher, S. and Hardaker, G. 357 academic capitalism 141–3 Academic City 316 Academic model providing access to healthcare (AMPATH) program 557 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) 42 Advice on Introducing Overseas talent, The (MoE) 50 “Advice on Opening Education Sector in New Era” (CCP and State Council) 52 Africa 461 see also SSA Africanisation 599 AGCID (International Cooperation Agency for Development) 230 AIMS (ASEAN Mobility International Student) program 121, 152 Ajou University 90 Akkari, A. 445 Al ALbait University 335 AL Albayt University 339, 340, 341 Al-Azhar University 384, 387, 390–1 Al-Fathly, M.A. and Ibrahim, A.M. 355 Al Hashimiyya University 335 Al Khaldi, S. 311 Al-Sudairy, H.T. 353 Albert Einstein German Academic Refugee Initiative Fund (DAFI) 477–8 Alexandria University 387, 388 Algeria 304, 447, 448 Almansour, S. 339 Altbach, P. 155, 342, 352 Altbach, P.G. and Selvaratnam, V. 7, 66 America 27, 187 cooperation with Tunisia 414 Peace Corps Program 479 segregation 496

American influence 41 see also Western influence Ethiopia 474, 475, 479, 483 GCC region 315–16 Japan 67 Korea 84 MENA region 303, 444 American University in Cairo (AUC) 315, 388 American University of Beirut 315 American University of Maa’daba (AUM) 334, 337, 338, 341 AMEXCID (Mexican Agency for International Collaboration) 273 Amharic 482 Ammam Arab University 339–40 AMPATH (Academic model providing access to healthcare) program 557 AMPEI (Mexican Association for International Education) 270, 272–3, 292 Angkor Wat 149 Anglophone Caribbean 211–12 ANQAHE (Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education) 307–8 ANUIES (National Association of Universities) 270, 272, 274 Anzola-Pardo, G. 250, 284 AQAN (ASEA Quality Assurance Network) 121 Arab Maghreb Union 412 Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE) 307–8 Arab Spring 11, 445 Argentina 164, 165, 170, 171 Arkansas State University (ASU) 275 ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) 42 ASEA Quality Assurance Network (AQAN) 121 ASEAN-China Academic Cooperation and Exchange Programme 153 619

620

ASEAN Mobility International Student (AIMS) program 121, 152 ASEAN + 3 152–3 ASEAN University Network (AUN) 152 Ashirbekov, A. 106 Asia 413 Asia Pacific 7–8, 41–6, 148–55, 598 see also under individual countries Assad, R. 445–6 Association of African Universities (AAU) 542 Association of International Educators (NAFSA) 191 ASU (Arkansas State University) 275 Attari, A.A. 308 Attraction and Insertion of Advanced Human Capital Program 231t AUC (American University in Cairo) 315, 388 AUM (American University of Maa’daba) 334, 337, 338, 341 AUN (ASEAN University Network) 152 Australia 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 regional knowledge networks 153–4t regionalism 151 Science without Borders (SwB) program 188 Ayouch, N. 374 Azman, N. and Da Wan, C. 606 Badry, F. 309 language policies 308, 322 research 306, 307, 319, 321 Bahrain 303 see also GCC region foreign branch campuses 316 funding 313 international partnerships 316 privatization 321 twinning models 316–17 Baker, R.K. 430 Balqa University 334, 337, 338, 340 Barbados 290t Barnett, R. 450 BC (British Council) 105, 173–5 BCP (Becas Chile Program) 221, 232–7, 291 Becas Chile Program (BCP) 221, 232–7, 291 Beckles, Hilary 199 Beghi, L. 365 Behr, A.L. 496 BEIC (Electronic Library of Scientific Information) 231t Bekele, T.A. and Ibrahim, B. 304, 305, 605 benchmarking 7 see also ranking benefits 31

INDEX

Bennett, M. 534 Berry, C. and Taylor, J. 247 Betre Science Ethiopia Scholarship Program 476 Better Ghana Agenda 536 Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation and Research (FOBESII) 273–4, 285 Birzeit University 440 BK21 (Brain Korea 21) 94–6 Bohl, D.K. 386 Bologna Process 103, 107–8, 112, 405 Bourguiba, Habib (president of Tunisia) 404 Boyle, F.A. 347 brain drain China 50, 149–50 Ethiopia 482 Kazakhstan 104–5, 109 Korea 84, 86 SSA 464, 590 Zimbabwe 520 Brain Korea 21 (BK21) 94–6 Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E., and Leask, B. 26 Brazil 182, 280t, 283–4, 599 see also LAC access opportunities 183–4 bilateral cooperation programs 185–6 CAPES/PrInt (Institutional Internationalization) Program 189–90, 284 collaborative programs 171 data 193, 292 English language programs 192, 193 exchange programs 185 faculty 282t FAUBAI 191 funding 164, 174, 183, 185–7, 190, 193–4, 281, 287 FUTURE-SE Program 190, 291 government policies 173, 174, 283–4 government support 283 HEIs 182–3, 190, 193–4, 286 Higher Education Student Load Fund (FIES) 183 IHE Survey of Higher Education and Student Mobility 192–3 international associations/networks 191, 292 international partnerships 185–6, 289, 290t international students 174, 191–2, 193, 288t, 289

INDEX

language programs 192, 291 Language without Borders (LwB) program 188, 291 National Education Plan 188, 283 postgraduate system 184, 280 priorities 188–9, 193 private for-profit institutions 182–3 Project Atlas initiative 192 public institutions 182, 183–4 ranking 184–5, 291 research 165, 172, 174, 184, 282, 289, 290t Science without Borders (SwB) program 185, 186–8, 221, 283–4 strategies 188–9, 193 student mobility 170, 185, 186–8, 191–3, 283–4, 288t–9 student numbers 183, 280t study abroad 193, 288t–9 time taken to graduate 281–2 University for All Program (PROUNI) 183 Brazilian Association for International Education (FAUBAI) 191, 292 BRICS Network University 187 Britain 474 British Centre for Professional Qualifications 360 British Council (BC) 105, 173–5, 283 Guide to English as a Medium of Instruction in Brazilian Higher Education Institutions 2018–19 192 British Cultural Council 357 British Department for International Development (DIFID) 564–5 Brock-Utne, B. 541 Buckner, E. 328 Butcher, N., Wilson-Strydom, M., Hoosen, S., MacDonald, C., Moore, A., and Barnes, L. 512 Cairo University 385, 387, 388 Callan, H. 249, 255 Cambodia 149 Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV) International Development Cooperation in Higher Education Program 121–2, 151 Campus Asia (Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students in Asia) 94, 151–2 Campus Internationalization (CI) 328, 329, 341

621

Canada 187, 414, 553 CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) 185–6 CAPES-COFECUB (French Committee for the Evaluation of Academic and Scientific Cooperation with Brazil) program 186 CAPES/FIPSE (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education) 186 CAPES-MECD program 186 CAPES/PrInt (Institutional Internationalization) Program 189–90, 284 CAPES survey 189 Cardno (2018) framework of policy analysis 383 Carnegie Foundation International Survey of the Academic Profession 65 Caribbean, the 197–8, 217 see also LAC academic collaboration agreements/ strategies 204, 205, 211, 212–15 academic mobility 206–7 academic views 208–9 Anglophone Caribbean 211–12 benefits of internationalization 201, 203 challenges 200–1 curricula 205, 291 Dutch Caribbean 212 education offered 201 employment 216 European Union 210 foreign branch campuses 208, 212 Francophone Caribbean 212–13 see also Haiti funding 204, 207–8, 210, 212–13, 214 global and regional dynamics 199–200 government systems 198–9 Grenada 288t, 289 Haiti 213, 289 HEIs 201–4, 213 international associations/networks 292 international collaboration 289, 290t international students 207, 210, 214, 289 joint /dual degree programs 205–6, 210 language teaching 206 liaison offices abroad 208 North and South approaches 209 OBIRET survey 166–7, 173, 176–7, 201–9 obstacles to internationalization 203, 207 opportunities 200–1, 216

622

organizational polices, structures and strategies 203–4, 209 program structures 204–5 quality assurance 208–9 ranking 208, 291 recommendations 216–17 regional integration 199 regional voices 208–9 research 206, 209, 212, 213, 289, 290t risks of internationalization 203 socio-economic factors 198 Spanish Caribbean 213–15 see also Cuba and Dominican Republic strategic partnerships 210 strengths 215 student mobility 170, 207–8, 213, 214, 289 study abroad 207, 289 sustainable development 209, 211–12 threats 216 2030 Agenda 197, 200 weaknesses 216 CCP (Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party) Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party of China on the Reform of the Educational System (1985 Decision) 48–9 CCP and State Council “Advice on Opening Education Sector in New Era” 52 CCYK (Colombia – Challenge Your Knowledge) 249, 250, 284 CDH (Collège Doctoral Haïtien) 213 CENEVAL (National Higher Education Evaluation Centre) 269 Centre for International Programs and Links (CIPL) 556–7 Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). See CCP Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo (CINDA) 238 Chabchoub, A. “Education and Globalisation in Tunisia” 403 challenges 27 Chan, D.K.K. 454 Chasi, S. 498 Chen, L. and Huang, D. 138 Chile 220–2, 280t–1, 284 AGCID 230 BCP 221, 232–7, 291

INDEX

CINDA 238 CNA 231–2t collaborative programs 171 CONICYT 230–1t CRUCh 237 employment 242 faculty 241, 242, 282t funding 164, 174, 220, 222, 226–7f, 230–1t, 232–7, 280–1 government policies 173, 174, 221, 222, 229–32, 236–7, 284 HEIs 221, 222, 237, 238–41, 286–7 institutional framework 236–7 inter-university collaboration 241 international associations/networks 292 international collaboration/cooperation 229, 232t, 230, 231, 237–8, 289, 290t international students 174, 224f–5t, 238, 288t, 289 language courses 235, 291 LearnChile 174, 238 MCAHC 236–7 MECESUP program 230 National Innovation Council 234 private alliances and networks 237–8 private institutions 221, 280 PUC 240, 241 quality assurance 220–1t, 231–2t, 234–5 ranking 223t–4, 238, 291 research 165, 172, 174, 221, 226–9f, 238, 239t, 241, 282, 289, 290t social inclusion 235–6 structure 222 student mobility 170, 224f–6, 288t, 289 student numbers 164, 220, 222–3, 235, 280t study abroad 221, 232–8, 289 time taken to graduate 281–2 Universa 238 University of Chile 240, 241 University of Concepción 240–1 Chilean Council of University Rectors (CRUCh) 237 China 41, 43, 60, 154, 551 ASEAN + 3 152 brain drain 50, 149–50 Confucianism 148–9 cooperation with Africa 553 cooperation with Tunisia 413 curricula 56, 606 “Double First-Class” Initiative 55 education history 48–9 elite institutions 42

INDEX

English language programs 43, 50, 56f, 138 Ethiopia 475–6 foreign branch campuses 151 foreign language programs 43, 50, 56f funding 52 government control 48–9, 50–2, 54–5 HEIs 53–8 institutional implementation and innovation 52–8 international faculty 55f, 150 international students 55–6, 105, 149, 150, 514 Kazakhstani students 105 knowledge economy 136 national plans 50–2 national universities 43–4 1985 Decision 49 overseas campuses 58, 151 Project 211 54–6 Project 985 54–6 ranking 42, 54 research 44, 59–60, 319 scholarships 52 science 59, 60 sino-foreign cooperation programs 56, 57, 319 sino-foreign cooperation secondary/ subordinate (erji) colleges 56, 57 sino-foreign cooperation universities 57–8 social science 59 student mobility 58 student numbers 42, 149 study abroad 236 TNHE 50–1f, 56–8 2003 Regulation 50 2004 Implementation 50 2004 Notice 51 Western influence 138, 155 China-ASEAN regionalism 153 China-ASEAN Scholar program 153 China Education Association for International Exchange 53 “Report of Internationalization of Higher Education in China” 54f China Scholarship Council (CSC) 52 Chinese State-Sponsored Study Abroad Program (SSSAP) 236 Chinese University Program 52 Chun Doo-Whan (president of South Korea) 86 CI (Campus Internationalization) 328, 329, 341

623

CIEES (Inter-institutional Committees for the Evaluation of Higher Education) 268 CINDA (Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo) 238 CIPL (Centre for International Programs and Links) 556–7 Cixi (empress dowager of China) 155 CLMV (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam) International Development Cooperation in Higher Education Program 121–2, 151 CNA (National Accreditation Commission) 231–2t Coffman, J. 318, 321, 322, 444 Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students in Asia (Campus Asia) 94, 151–2 Collège Doctoral Haïtien (CDH) 213 Colombia 245–6, 247, 249–50, 284–5 Agreement for Higher Education 250 assets 252 CCYK 249, 250, 284 challenges 256, 259 collaborative programs 171 competitiveness 248 conflict 247 dropout rate 259, 281 economy 253–5 employment 253–4 faculty 282t foreign investment 254 funding 174, 281 government policies 173, 174, 247–8, 249–50, 256–7, 284–5 HEIs 245–6, 249–50, 252, 256, 259 heterogeneity 252–3 ideological context and trends 251t inequalities 259 international collaboration 289–90t international students 174, 250, 284, 288t minority groups 256 National Development Plan 247, 249, 284–5 1991 Charter 258 quality assurance 250, 252 ranking 291 RCI 249 Reflections on the policy of internationalization of higher education in Columbia 250 research 174, 259, 282, 284, 289–90t security 250

624

social development 245–6, 247–8, 252, 254–5, 256–9 stakeholders 257 student mobility 170, 250, 284, 285, 288t student numbers 252, 253, 259, 280t, 281 talent demand 253–4 teaching 258, 259 technology 257 urbanization 251, 259 Colombia – Challenge Your Knowledge (CCYK) 249, 250, 284 Colombian Network for Internationalization of Higher Education (RCI) 249 colonialism 1, 5, 511, 534, 552, 607 see also coloniality and decoloniality Altbach, P.G. and Selvaratnam, V. 7 Egypt 384–5 Ethiopia 472 Ghana 535, 543–5, 588 , 607 India 138 Japan 67 Korea 67, 83, 84 language 13, 482 Libya 357 Nigeria 571–2, 592 South Africa 493, 495 SSA 462–3t, 464, 534, 552, 587, 590, 607 Zimbabwe 589, 592, 607 coloniality 14–15, 587–8, 590 competition 23, 24, 248, 255 Comprehensive Internationalization 328, 329–30 CONACYT (National Council of Science and Technology) 268–9 CONAHEC (Consortium for North American Higher education Collaboration) 272, 273 Confucianism 148–9, 597 Confucius Institutes 212 CONICYT (National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research) 230–1t Consortium for North American Higher education Collaboration (CONAHEC) 272, 273 cooperation 23, 24 Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) 185–6 COPAES (Higher Education Accreditation Council) 268 Costa Rica 170 Covid-19 crisis 597, 608

INDEX

CQAA (Libyan Centre for Quality Assurance and Accreditation) 360 Cr˘aciun, D. 31, 486, 510–11, 604 CRES (UNESCO Regional Conference on Higher Education) 175 CRES 2018 (3rd General Conference on Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean) 200 “Criteria in Faculty Evaluation” (University A.) 59 Cross, M. Mhlanga, E., and Ojo, E. 5 CRUCh (Chilean Council of University Rectors) 237 CSC (China Scholarship Council) 52 Cuba 213–14, 280t, 282t, 285, 289, 290t HEIs 202t curricula 328–9, 606 Caribbean, the 205, 291 China 56, 606 Ethiopia 482–4 home 25–6 Kazakhstan 112 Knight, J. 3 LAC 170–1, 291 Leask, B. 3, 482 MENA region 306, 453–4 Warwick, P. and Morgan, Y.J. 3 Zimbabwe 518t DAAD (German Academic Exchange Program) 105, 556, 567 DAFI (Albert Einstein German Academic Refugee Initiative Fund) 477–8 Dakhli, M. and El Zohairy, D. 315, 321, 322 de Wit, H. 3–4, 27, 249, 255, 497, 531 Africanisation 599 NTEISP typology 599 de Wit, H and Hunter, F. 328, 573 de Wit, H and Leask, B. 27 de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., and Egron-Polak, E. 24–5, 531 de Wit, Jaramillo, I.C., Gacel-Ávila, J., and Knight, J. 287 Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party of China on the Reform of the Educational System (1985 Decision) (CCP) 48–9 decoloniality 15, 464, 534, 587–90, 598–9, 607, 608 Ghana 535, 543–5, 588 Kenya 588 Zimbabwe 589, 592

INDEX

developing countries 5, 6, 33–6, 136, 461, 551–3 see also Global South and LAC Dhaher, N. “Tunisian University between Localism and Internationalism, The” 403 Dicken, P. 350–1 Dickinson, J. 371 DIFID (British Department for International Development) 564–5 Dominican Republic 214–15, 290t access 280t faculty 282t HEIs 202t international collaboration 171 international students 289 research 290t student mobility 170, 288t “Double First-Class” Initiative 55 Dubai Knowledge Village 316 Dutch Caribbean 202t, 212 Dzvimbo, K.P. and Moloi, K.C. 586 E-Science, Réseau Maghrébin de Labouratoires à distance (E-Science, Maghreb Network of remote labs) 418 EAIE (European Association for International Education) 191 East, shift to 148, 155 East Asia 148–55 economic gain 533 economic growth 12–13f Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) 118 Economies Egypt 384 Ethiopia 471 GCC region 312 India 137 Japan 68 Kazakhstan 101 Korea 80, 84–5, 86, 87 LAC 163–4, 281 Libya 355–6 Malaysia 118t, 120 MENA region 299 Morocco 374–5 Educacion Global 276 education 244–5, 246 “Education and Globalisation in Tunisia” (Chabchoub, A.) 403 Education City 316 Education Malaysia Global Services 129–30

625

education mobility 140 Education Sector Development Programme (ESDP) V 487 EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) 430–1 Egerton University 561t Egypt 302, 382, 383, 398–9, 453, 599 colonialism 384–5 decoupling 396–7 dropout rate 453 economy 384 English language programs 384–5 equality 446 expansive structuration 397 faculty 385, 386 foreign branch campuses 389, 392–5, 396, 397, 451 funding 385–6 global indicator ranking 385 governance 385, 397 HEIs 385 HERQA 486 higher education history 384–5 IBCs 389, 392–5, 396, 397, 451 IHE 387–9, 395–9 institutional theory 395–6, 397, 398 international cooperation 388, 389, 394–5, 397–8, 605 international faculty 388 international programs 289 international students 304, 385, 386, 389–91f, 395 isomorphism 396 liberal arts institutions 387 methodology 382–3 MoHESR 385, 386, 387, 393–5, 396–7 nationalization 388 objectives 387 otherhood 397–8 policies/strategies 385, 386, 387, 393–5, 396–7 politico-economic dynamics 384 privatization 305, 388–9 quality assurance 386 ranking 385 rationalization 398 reform 385–6 research 307, 398 science 398 student mobility 304, 387, 389–93 student numbers 385, 386

626

study abroad 304, 388, 391–3 sustainable development 386–7, 396, 398 transnational agreements 388, 389, 391–4 Egypt Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) 2030 Vision 386–7, 396, 398 Ehteshami, A. 443–4 Elabbar, A. 348 Electronic Library of Scientific Information (BEIC) 231t emerging economies 6, 33 see also developing countries NTEISPs mapping exercise 33–6 employment 449 Chile 242 Colombia 253–4 GCC region 321 MENA region 308–9, 448f–9 Morocco 448 Palestine 448 Saudi Arabia 448 South Africa 503 Tunisia 448 UAE 448 Endicott College 93 English language policies 598 Brazil 192, 193 China 43, 50, 56f, 138 Egypt 384–5 Ethiopia 481–2, 483 GCC region 313, 318, 322–3 India 138–9 Japan 70, 73, 74 Jordan 339, 340 Korea 88, 91–2 Libya 355–6 Malaysia 43 MENA region 305–6 Morocco 305–6, 373–4 Tunisia 305–6, 410 ENLACES (Espacio Latinoamericano y Caribeño de Educación Superior [Latinamerican and Caribbean Higher Education Space]) 175 EOLES (E-Science, Réseau Maghrébin de Labouratoires à distance [E-Science, Maghreb Network of remote labs]) project 418 Erasmus programs 391, 408–9f, 411, 533 ESDP (Education Sector Development Programme) V 487

INDEX

Espacio Latinoamericano y Caribeño de Educación Superior (Latinamerican and Caribbean Higher Education Space) (ENLACES) 175 EthERNet (Ethiopian Educational and Research Network) 481 ethical internationalization 553 see also sustainable development Ethiopia 470–1, 589, 592, 599 American influence 474, 475, 479, 483 Amharic language policy 482 brain drain 476 British influence 474 Chinese influence 475–6 colonialism 472 curricula 482–4 DAFI 477–8 economy 471 English language policy 481–2, 483 Erasmus 475 ESDP V 487 EthERNet 481 faculty 473 faculty mobility 478–80f foreign branch campuses 486 French language policy 483 funding 476, 377 government policies 473, 481, 487–8 HEIs 473, 484–5 higher education overview 471–3 IaH 482–3 ICT 480–1 IHE 473 IHE policies/strategies 486–8 international cooperation 484–5 international faculty 478–80f international students 476–8 internationalization rationales 473 IoC 484 missionaries 474, 478 population 471 privatization 473 quality assurance 486 refugees 477–8 religion 472, 478 research 481, 484–5 scholarships 476, 477 Soviet influence 474–5 student mobility 474–8 student numbers 473 study abroad 474–6, 589 study approach 471

INDEX

technology 480–1 TNHE 485–6 tradition 472 UNHCR 477 Western influence 472, 474, 478, 483 Work, E. 483 Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap 485, 487 Ethiopian Educational and Research Network (EthERNet) 481 ETP (Economic Transformation Programme) 118 EU (European Union) 210, 417, 556 European Association for International Education (EAIE) 191 European Commission projects 432–3t see also Tempus program European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) 430–1 European Higher Education Area 107 European Union (EU) 210, 417, 556 Ewha Womans University 92–3 Exchange Program for Postgraduate Students (PEC-PG) 185 Exchange Program for Undergraduate Students (PEC-G) 185 expansion 96 faculty see also faculty mobility Brazil 282t Chile 241, 242, 282t Dominican Republic 282t Egypt 385, 386 Ethiopia 473 GCC region 318, 323 Kazakhstan 103, 110 LAC 168, 172, 282 Malaysia 116–17, 124 MENA region 451 Morocco 370 Nigeria 579–80 faculty mobility 328, 532, 589–90, 605 Caribbean, the 206–7 Colombia 282t Ethiopia 478–80f Ghana 540, 545, 546 Jordan 305, 337–8, 342, 343 Kenya 556–7 Korea 79, 88, 95 LAC 169 MENA region 304–5, 306 Mexico 282t

627

Palestine 437t, 438t South Africa 498–500 Tunisia 305, 407–8, 414 Zimbabwe 512–13, 516–17t, 518t, 520 FAUBAI (Brazilian Association for International Education) 191, 292 Guide to English as a Medium of Instruction in Brazilian Higher Education Institutions 2018–19 192 Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta 576 Fernández, A. 249 FIES (Higher Education Student Load Fund) 183 FIMPES (Mexican Federation of Private Institutions of Higher Education) 268, 270 5+5 consortium 412 “Flying Faculty Program, The” 338 FOBESII (Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation and Research) 273–4, 285 Folha de S. Paulo 184–5 foreign branch campuses see also IBCs Bahrain 316 Caribbean, the 208, 212 Egypt 387, 392–5, 396, 397, 451 Ethiopia 486 GCC region 316–17 India 138, 140 Japan 73–4 China 151 Jordan 338, 342 Korea 93–4 Malaysia 124, 125, 151 MENA region 303–4, 450–1 Mexico 275 Qatar 316, 451 SSA 553–4 UAE 303, 316, 451 France 474 France: Guadeloupe-Martinique 202t, 212–13 Francophone Caribbean 212–13 French Committee for the Evaluation of Academic and Scientific Cooperation with Brazil (CAPES-COFECUB) program 186 French Guiana 290t funding Bahrain 313 Brazil 164, 174, 183, 185–7, 190, 193–4, 281, 287

628

Caribbean, the 204, 207–8, 210, 212–13, 214 Chile 164, 174, 220, 222, 226–7f, 230–1t, 232–7, 280–1 China 52 Colombia 174, 281 Egypt 385–6 Ethiopia 476, 477 GCC region 313, 317 Ghana 537, 538–9, 540–1, 542, 545, 546 Japan 71, 75 Jordan 332 Kazakhstan 103, 105–6, 110, 112 Kenya 557, 559–62, 566 Korea 83, 94 Kuwait 313 LAC 164, 167, 168, 169, 174, 281, 287 Libya 355–6 Malaysia 117, 125 MENA region 300 Mexico 174, 270, 274, 281, 287 Morocco 370, 371, 372 Nigeria 579–90, 581 Oman 313 Palestine 425–5, 433, 434, 440 Qatar 313 Saudi Arabia 313 South Africa 503–4 SSA 463, 533 Tunisia 406–7, 408, 416, 417 UAE 313 Zimbabwe 513, 515, 522–3, 525 “future of English in multilingual Morocco. The” (Laaraj, Y.) 373–4 FUTURE-SE Program 190, 291 Gacel-Ávila, J. 249, 607 “Higher Education, Internationalization and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean” 283 Gadour, A. 357 Garwe, E.C. 604 GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) region 311–12, 443 see also under individual countries Americanization 315–16 Arabic 312 challenges 320–3 conflict between modernity and tradition 322–3 cooperation with Tunisia 412 economy 312

INDEX

education 312–14 employment 321 English language programs 313, 318, 322–3 expatriates 313, 321 faculty 318, 323 female education 313, 315 foreign branch campuses 316–17 funding 313, 317 government control 320 government policies 314, 317 IHE patterns 315–17 imported internationalization 314 international students 317t–18 internationalization 314–15 Islam 312 outdated pedagogy 321 population 311 privatization 318, 320–1 quality assurance 319–20, 321–2 regional integration 319–20 research 306, 319, 321 student mobility 317t–18 student numbers 313–14f study abroad 313, 317t TNHE 315–17 universities 312, 315, 316 Western influence 313 Geerlings, L.R.C. and Lundberg, A. 142, 143, 454 German Academic Exchange Program (DAAD) 105, 556, 567 German Federal Ministry of Education and research 434 German Jordanian University (GJU). See GJU Ghabra, S. and Arnold, M. 312, 320 Ghana 588, 591 Better Ghana Agenda 536 collaboration 541, 545 contextualised approach 543–4 decoloniality 535, 543–5, 588 , 607 faculty mobility 540, 545, 546 funding 537, 538–9, 540–1, 542, 545, 546 government policies 538–9, 542, 545–6, 591, 604 higher education overview 535–7 infrastructural development 543 interest in African knowledge systems 543 international associations 542 international collaboration 541 international faculty 540 international offices 539

INDEX

international students 539–40, 542–3 methodology 534–5 misrepresentation 544–5 NAB 536 NCTE 536 policymaking stakeholders 541–2 quality assurance 536 recommendations 543–6 research 541, 545–6 security 543 student mobility 539–40 study abroad 540, 545 trust 542–3 universities’ IHE perception 537–8 university policies 539 Western influence 541 Giyorgis, Alaqa Kefla 478 Giyorgis, Fesseha 478 GJU (German Jordanian University) 334, 335, 342 faculty mobility 338 international partnerships 340 international students 336 multiculturalism 341 research 339 study abroad 337 global citizenship education 127, 172 Global Dialogue event 191 global good 27 global human resources 70, 75, 329 global mobility 24 “Global Research Partnership” 307, 319 Global South 4, 6, 594–5, 596–608 see also under individual countries Asia Pacific 7–8, 41–6, 148–55, 598 curricula 606 decolonization 607 emerging issues 597–9, 606–7 faculty mobility 605 geographical focus points 605 intercultural competence 606 international collaboration/partnerships 605 internationalization training 606–7 key actors 604–5 Latin America and the Caribbean. See LAC national internationalization strategies 599, 600t–3t North Africa and the Middle East. See MENA NTEISP typology 599 student mobility 605

629

Sub-Saharan Africa. See SSA trends 599, 604–5 globalization 30, 142, 143, 246–7, 329, 443, 454, 586 definitions 350t–1t, 352–3 MENA 444, 445 neo-liberal theory of 593 resistance to 551 Western hegemony 594 Gomez, C. 247 Gonzalez, J., Bernasconi, A., and Puyol, F. 280–1, 286, 294 Gopinathan, S. and Lee, M. 136 Gorgoreyos, A. 478 government policies 32, 34, 42, 44, 286, 604 see also NTEISPs Brazil 173, 174, 283–4 Chile 173, 174, 221, 222, 229–32, 236–7, 284 China 48–9, 50–2, 50, –2, 54–5 Colombia 173, 174, 247–8, 249–50, 256–7, 284–5 Egypt 385–7, 396–7 Ethiopia 473, 481, 487–8 GCC region 314, 317, 320 Ghana 538–9, 542, 545–6, 591, 604 India 142–3 Japan 42, 68 Jordan 331–4, 342 Kazakhstan 102–4, 111–12 Kenya 555, 560, 567, 604 Korea 81, 83, 84–6, 87–8, 89, 93–5, 97 LAC 173–5, 283–6, 287, 292 Libya 355–6 Malaysia 118t–23, 130 MENA region 302–3 Mexico 173, 174, 271, 273, 276, 285 Morocco 367–70, 378–80 Nigeria 572, 578, 591, 604 Palestine 425–6, 435t–7t, 441 Tunisia 404–5, 411, 415, 419 Zimbabwe 514–16, 519–20, 592 Grenada 288t, 289, 290t Guadeloupe 212–13 Guide to English as a Medium of Instruction in Brazilian Higher Education Institutions (British Council-FAUBAI) 2018–19 192 Guido, Ignazio 478 Gulf Arab culture 452 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region. See GCC region

630

Gunsyma, S. 328 Guruz, K. 138 Guyana 202t, 290t Gyamera, G.O. 604 H2020 417 Haile Selassie I (emperor of Ethiopia) 474, 476, 483 Haiti 202t, 213, 289 Haitian Association for the Advancement of Science and Technology 213 Han, X. 56–7 Han, X. and Shen, W. 150, 606 Harman, G. 356 Hasan, T., Ramaprasad, A., and Singai, C. 142 HE (higher education), definition 263 Hegarty, S. 596 HEIs (higher education institutions) 246–7, 255–6, 510 Brazil 182–3, 190, 193–4, 286 Chile 221, 222, 237, 238–41, 286–7 China 53–8 Colombia 245–6, 249–50, 252, 256, 259 developing countries 551–2 Dominican Republic 202t Egypt 385–6 Ethiopia 473, 484–5 history 327 India 139t internationalization abroad 53 internationalization at home 53 internationalized 52–3 Japan 65–6 Kenya 554–61 Korea 79, 81, 87, 89, 97–8 LAC 286–7, 293 Libya 348–50t MENA region 301, 446–7 Mexico 265–8, 277 Morocco 367–8 Nigeria 572t, 574–5 Palestine 425–6 Saudi Arabia 446 SSA 463t, 554 strategies 53 Tunisia 404, 446–7 UAE 446 Zimbabwe 512, 516–18, 520–3, 525 Helms, R.M. 482–3 Helms, R.M. and Rumbley, L.E. 531 Hemispheric University Consortium 211 Hermanowicz, J. 246

INDEX

HERQA (Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency) 486 High School of Aeronautics and Technologies 410 higher education (HE), definition 263 Higher Education Accreditation Council (COPAES) 268 higher education institutions (HEIs). See HEIs “Higher Education, Internationalization and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean” (Gacel-Ávila, J.) 283 Higher Education Law number 23 for the year 2009 333 Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency (HERQA) 486 Higher Education Student Load Fund (FIES) 183 Higher Institute of Applied Informatics and Management (ISIAM) 369 Higher Learning in America, The (Veblen, Thorstein) 141 Hong, M. 531 Hristova, S., Petrovksa, I., and Dimitrova, M. 136 Huang, F. and Daiszen, T. 75 Huber, E., Gunderson, J, and Stephens, J.D. 136 Human Capital Formation Abroad 231t Human Capital Project 455 IaH (Internationalization at Home) 328, 341, 482–3, 578 IAU (International Association of Universities) Global Surveys 9, 166 IBCs (international branch campuses) see also foreign branch campuses Egypt 389, 392–5, 396, 397 ICEF (International Consultants for Education and Fairs) 128–9 ICT (Information Communication Technology) 353–5, 417–18 see also technology IHE (internationalization of higher education) 2–5, 23–8, 255, 327–30, 356, 383, 510, 530–1 benefits 31, 166–7, 550, 577–8 Callan, H. 249 challenges 533–4 characteristics 25 colonialism 511 definitions 26, 30, 31, 64–5, 135, 263, 328, 356, 403, 573

INDEX

forced 27 globalization and 350t–1t historical 327 horizontal approach 41, 588, 590, 594, 598 imperialism 552, 593 opportunities 532–3 policies/strategies 486, 511, 531–2, 598–9 as political instrument 497, 553 trends in 29–30 vertical approach 15, 41, 588, 591, 594, 598, 608 Western face of 551 IHE Survey of Higher Education and Student Mobility 192–3 “Imperial Echoes” (Pietsch, T.) 552 imperialism 552, 593 see also colonialism “Implementation Measures of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools” (MoE) 50 Incheon Free Economic Zone 93 Incheon Global Campus 93 inclusion 27 India 41, 43, 135, 143–4, 599 academic capitalism 141–3 colonialism 138 economy 137 English as dominant language 138–9 foreign branch campuses 138, 140 government policies 142–3 HEIs 139t heritage 137–8, 141 Hindi 139 holistic education 141 international students 140, 141f knowledge 136, 141, 144 knowledge economy 143 overseas campuses 138, 140 research 319 student mobility 138, 140–41f student numbers 137f–8, 140 study abroad 140 Western influence 138, 141 indigenous knowledge 137–8, 141, 155 see also Confucianism Indonesia 154 inequalities 258 Information Communication Technology (ICT) 353–5, 417–18 see also technology

631

information technology. See ICT and technology INQAAHE (International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education) 232t Insanally, A. and Madera, L.I. 287, 291, 293 institutional theory 395–6, 397, 398 Inter-institutional Committees for the Evaluation of Higher Education (CIEES) 268 Interamerican Dialogue Education Program 171 intercultural competence 606 International Association of Universities (IAU) Global Surveys 9, 166 international branch campuses (IBCs). See IBCs international collaboration/partnerships 532, 605 see also TNHE Bahrain 316 Brazil 185–6, 191, 192, 289, 290t Caribbean, the 204, 205, 211, 212–15, 289, 290t, 292 Chile 171, 229, 232t, 230, 231, 237–8, 289, 290t, 292 China 56–8, 319, 413, 475–6, 553 Colombia 171, 289–90t Dominican Republic 171 Egypt 289, 388, 389, 391–5, 397–8, 605 Ethiopia 484–6 GCC region 315–17, 412 Ghana 541, 542 Japan 70 Jordan 339–40 Kazakhstan 104, 109–10, 111 Kenya 556–7, 559–62, 567 Korea 414 Kuwait 316–17 LAC 168, 289–90t, 292 Libya 304, 359t–6 Malaysia 117–19, 121–2, 125 MENA region 303–4, 412 Mexico 171, 272, 273, 274, 289–90t, 292 Morocco 304 Nigeria 575, 576 Oman 303, 316 Palestine 432–3t, 434, 440 Saudi Arabia 303, 316, 317 South Africa 497–8 SSA 413–14, 553–4 Tunisia 304, 406–9f, 410–14, 417–18 Zimbabwe 515–16, 517t, 518t

632

International Consultants for Education and Fairs (ICEF) 128–9 International Cooperation Agency for Development (AGCID) 230 International Cooperation Agreements and Programs 231t international faculty China 55f, 150 Egypt 388 Ethiopia 478–80f Ghana 540 Japan 67, 72–3f, 75 Korea 80, 92 LAC 167 Libya 357 Malaysia 116f–17, 124 MENA region 451 Nigeria 573–4, 575, 576, 589 Palestine 439, 440 South Africa 497, 498–9 International Institute of Management Development Brain Drain index 150 international Islamic universities 335 International Islamic University Malaysia 335 International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) 232t international students (inbound students) 174, 511 Brazil 174, 191–2, 193, 288t, 289 Caribbean, the 207, 210, 214, 289 Chile 174, 224f–5t, 238, 288t, 289 China 55–6, 105, 149, 150, 514 Colombia 174, 250, 284, 288t Dominican Republic 289 Egypt 304, 385, 386, 389–91f, 395 Ethiopia 476–8 GCC region 317t–18 Ghana 539–40, 542–3 India 140, 141f Japan 44, 68, 69, 71–2ft, 74, 150–1t Jordan 304, 336–7t, 343 Kazakhstan 103–4, 112, 113 Kenya 556–7 Korea 44, 80, 88, 90–1t, 92, 97, 150 LAC 169–70, 287–8 Malaysia 44, 120t, 121–4, 126–30, 149, 150 MENA region 304, 451 Mexico 174 Nigeria 573–4, 575, 576, 580, 589 Palestine 439, 441

INDEX

South Africa 497, 500t–7, 589 SSA 553 Tunisia 413 UAE 317t–18 Zimbabwe 513–14, 517t, 518, 519 International Survey of the Academic Profession (Carnegie Foundation) 65 International University of Casablanca 369 internationalization 1–2, 350t–1t UNESCO Regional Conference 2018 165 Internationalization at Home (IaH) 328, 341, 482–3, 578 internationalization of higher education (IHE). See IHE Internationalization of Research 329 Internationalization of the Curriculum (IoC) 328–9, 341, 484 internationalization training 606–7 intra-Asian regionalism 150–4 IoC (Internationalization of the Curriculum) 328–9, 341, 484 Iran 304 ISIAM (Higher Institute of Applied Informatics and Management) 369 Iskandar EduCity 119 Islamic Sciences and World University 335 isomorphism 396 Jabavu, John Tengo 496 Jamaica 202t, 290t Janczyk-Strzala and Tomaszewski, J. 356 Japan 41, 42, 64–5, 138, 342 Americanization phase 67 ASEAN + 3 153 challenges 74–5, 76 Chinese influence 66, 155 colonialism 67 Confucianism 148 economy 68 English language programs 70, 73, 74 foreign branch campuses 73–4 funding 71, 75 global human resource development 70, 75 government control 68 government involvement 42 HEIs 65–6 higher education 65–8 international faculty 67, 72–3f, 75 international students 44, 68, 69, 71–2ft, 74, 150–1t internationalization changes 66–8 Japanization 67

INDEX

Keijo Imperial University 67 Kokusaika 67–8 Nakasone Plan 68 policies/strategies 68–74, 76 private universities 44, 65, 71 ranking 68, 69f, 70–1, 74 research 65, 70–1, 74, 75 risks 75 student decline 68 Taihoku Imperial University 67 TNHE 70 Western influence 66, 67, 155 Westernization phase 66, 155 Jaramillo, I.C. 245–6, 249 Jega, A. 573, 574 Jomo Kenyatta University 561t Jones, E. and de Wit, H. 24, 27, 608 Jones, E. and Reiffenrath, T. 403 Joongang Ilbo rankings 89 Jordan 302, 330 Arabic 340 CI 328, 329, 341 cultural understanding 341 English language programs 339, 340 faculty mobility 305, 337–8, 342, 343 faith 341 foreign branch campuses 338, 342 funding 332 governance 332 government policies 331–4, 342 HE aims 333 higher education history 330 Higher Education Law number 23 for the year 2009 333 higher education structure 331–4 IaH 328, 341 IHE rationale 332–3 international Islamic universities 335 international issues 340–1 international partnerships 339–40 international students 304, 336–7t, 343 IoC 328–9, 341 Islam 335, 341 language 340 Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) 330, 331, 332–4 national documents 333–4 National Strategy for the Higher Education and Scientific Research Sector for the Years 2007–2012 333 privatization 305, 341–2, 447 regionalization 333, 342

633

research 306, 307, 339 “Strategic Plan Document 2015–2018, The” 334 student mobility 304, 336t–7t study abroad 304, 337 universities 330–1t, 332, 334–41 university official literature 334–5t, i343 university quality 332 Jordan University for Science and Technology (JUST) 335, 336, 339, 340 Jowi, J.O. 588 Jowi, J.O., Knight, J., and Sehoole, C. 577–8 Jumakulov, Z. and Ashirbekov, A. 105, 106 JUST (Jordan University for Science and Technology) 335, 336, 339, 340 Karaouine University 370 Kariya, K. 74 Kazakhstan 41, 42, 44, 100, 599 American scholarships 105 autonomous universities 110–11 Bolashak scholarship 106, 109 Bologna Process 103, 107–8, 112 brain drain 104–5, 109 British Council 105 Chinese funding 105 curricula 112 economy 101 ethnicity 104 exchange programs 105–6 faculty 103, 110 funding 103, 105–6, 110, 112 future directions 111–13 government policies 102–4, 111–12 grant exchanges 105 higher education in 101–2 international collaborations 104 international faculty 104, 108, 110 international mobility programs 104–7 international partnerships 109–10, 111 international students 103–4, 112, 113 international universities 108–10 medicine 113 Nazarbayev University (NU) 108–10 ranking 112 research 111, 112 Soviet influence 101, 112 statistical data 103–4 student mobility 103, 105–6, 112–13 study abroad 103, 108, 109 tradition 113

634

KDI (Korea Development Institute) 86 KDI School of Public Policy and Management 92 Kehm, B. and Teichler, U. 249 Kehoe, M. 483 Keijo Imperial University 67 Kenya 550–1, 588, 592 AMPATH program 557 CIPL 556–7 collaboration 555 DAAD 556, 567 decoloniality 588 doctoral education 566–7 external partners 556 faculty 564–6 faculty mobility 556–7 funding 557, 559–62, 566 government policies 555, 560, 567, 604 HEIs 554–61 innovation 562–4t international collaboration 556–7, 559–62, 567 international students 556–7 policy context 554–9 privatization 565 research 557, 559–64t student mobility 556–7 student numbers 555 study abroad 553 technology 480 universities 555, 556–61 Kenyatta University 557, 561t, 562, 566–7 Kim Young Sam (president of South Korea) 87 King Abdullah University of Science and Technology 307, 319, 450 KIST (Korean Institute f Science and Technology) 86 Knight, J. 135, 328, 356, 531, 573 curricula 3 global challenge leaders 454 globalization 350, 351t, 353, 454 international level of internationalization 49, 52 national level of internationalization 49, 52 policies 532 regionalization 342 Knight, J. and de Wit, H. 328 Knight, J. and Sehoole, C. 573 knowledge 135, 136, 142, 143, 144 see also indigenous knowledge

INDEX

knowledge creation/production. See research knowledge economy 24–5, 135–6, 141–3 see also academic capitalism Kobayashi, T. 246 Kokusaika 67–8 Korea 41, 42, 43, 79–80, 96–8 American influence 84 ASEAN + 3 153 BK21 94–6 brain drain 84, 86 brain gain 86, 87 Chun Administration 86 colonialism 67, 83, 84 competition 97 Confucianism 148–9 cooperation with Tunisia 414 demand 86–7, 88 dual degree programs 90 economy 80, 84–5, 86, 87 EMI (English Medium Instruction) courses 91–2 English language programs 88, 91–4, 98 English-only institutions 92, 93–4 exchange programs 89–90 faculty 79, 88, 95 foreign branch campuses 93–4 funding 83, 94 globalization 87 government 81, 83, 84–6, 87–8, 89, 94, 97 graduate programs 87, 91–2, 94, 95 HE eco-system 80–2f HEIs 79, 81, 87, 89, 97–8 households 81 human resources 85, 96 Incheon Free Economic Zone 93 Incheon Global Campus 93 industrialization 84–6 international faculty 80, 92 international students 44, 80, 88, 90–1t, 92, 97, 150 international summer programs 92 Keijo Imperial University 67 Kim Dae Joong Administration 90, 94 Kim Young Sam Administration 87–8, 89 Lee administration 93–4 Lee Administration 93–4, 95 Lee Myung Bak Administration 94 liberalization 87–96 1995 Education Reform 87, 88 NRF 96 Park Administration 84, 85 post-war reconstruction 82–4

INDEX

private universities 44, 83 ranking 89, 90–1, 97 research 89, 94–6 Rhee Administration 84 Roh Moo Hyun Administration 91, 94 secondary education 85 socio-economic environment 81 student age 90 student mobility 88, 89–90, 97 student numbers 83t, 85, 86, 88, 90–1t, 94 study abroad 84, 85–6, 87, 89–90, 97 suppression of HE 84–6 tenure system 95 tuition revenue 91 WCU program 94–6 Korea Development Institute (KDI) 86 Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies 86 Korean Institute f Science and Technology (KIST) 86 Korean War 82, 83 Kormondy, E.J. 59 Kuwait 303 see also GCC region funding 313 international partnerships 316–17 study abroad 317t wealth 312 Laaraj, Y. “future of English in multilingual Morocco. The” 373–4 LAC (Latin America and the Caribbean) 8–10, 163–5, 176–9, 279–82, 598 see also Caribbean, the and under individual countries academic integration 175–6 benefits 166 competitiveness 163 curricula 170–1, 291 data 292 dropout rate 164, 281 economy 163–4, 281 equality 163, 164 external factors 167 faculty 168, 172, 282 faculty mobility 169 foreign language programs 171, 291 funding 164, 167, 168, 169, 174, 281, 287 future, the 293 global citizenship education 172 global skills 292 HEI strategies 286–7, 293 higher education context 165–6

635

international associations/networks 292 international collaboration 168, 289–90t international faculty 167 international students 169–70, 287–8 internationalization 165 internationalization offices 167–8 intra-regional initiatives 175–6 intra-regional mobility 169–70 knowledge production 172–3 labor market 165 national programs 283–6, 292 obstacles 167 organizational structures 167–8 program structures 168–73 progress 279 public policies 173–5, 283–6, 287, 292 quality assurance 167–8 ranking 291 reform 178–9 regional studies 166 research 165, 172–3, 174, 282, 289–90t, 292, 293–4 risks 166 social inclusion 163–4 student mobility 169–70, 287–9, 292 student numbers 164–5, 280t study abroad 169, 170, 172–3, 287–9 time taken to graduate 281–2 university associations 175 websites 168 languages 12 see also English language Amharic 482 Arabic 12, 305–6, 308, 312, 340, 366 Berber 366 Brazil 188, 192, 291 Caribbean, the 206 Chile 235, 291 China 43, 50, 56f colonialism 13 Ethiopia 481–2, 483 French 305–6, 340, 366, 483 GCC region 312 Hindi 139 Jordan 340 LAC 171, 291 MENA region 305–6, 308 Mexico 277 Morocco 366 Palestine 440 Qatar 308 UAE 308 Ýoruba’ 576

636

Language without Borders (LwB) program 188, 291 Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). See LAC LDCs (Least Developed Countries) 461 LearnChile 174, 238 Leask, B. 3, 5, 328–9, 482 Leask, B., Jones, E., and de Wit, H. 25–6 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) 461 Lebanon 301, 302 international students 304 student mobility 304 study abroad 304 Lee, J.T. 125 Lee, J. and Sehoole, C. 501, 503 Liang Qichao 155 library-based research 429–30 Libya 302, 346–7, 360, 452 civil war 347–8 colonialism 357 economy 355–6 education system 348–50t English language programs 305–6, 357 funding 355 globalization 351, 352–3 government policies 346, 354, 355 HEIs 348–50t ICT 353–5, 608 IHE 356 international collaboration 359t–60 international partnership schemes 304 international students 357 NHEP 2008–2012 354–5 privatization 305, 355–6 quality assurance 307 SLEIDSE 356 student mobility 357–9 student numbers 355 study abroad 357–9 universities 349–50 Libyan Centre for Quality Assurance and Accreditation (CQAA) 360 Lutabingwa, J.L. 350 LwB (Language without Borders) program 188, 291 M-I-T (Malaysia-Indonesia-Thailand) Student Mobility Program 121 Ma, H. 254 Macmillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. 371 Madera, I. 172 Madichie, N. 323

INDEX

Majdoubi, H. 376 Majee, U.S. and Ress, S.B. 23 Malaysia 41, 115, 138, 154, 599 ASEA Quality Assurance Network (AQAN) 121 ASEAN focus strategy 121–2 ASEAN Mobility International Student (AIMS) program 121 Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV) International Development Cooperation in Higher Education Program 121–2 challenges 123–30 community acceptance 127–8 competition 124–5 Economic Transformation Programme 118 economy 118t, 120 edu-tourism 130 education hubs 118t–20, 122–3, 125–6 Education Malaysia Global Services 129–30 Education NKEA 118 English language programs 43 faculty 116–17, 124 foreign branch campuses 124, 125, 151 funding 117, 125 future plans 130–1 global citizenship 126–7 global outreach 120–1t government policies 118t–23, 130 higher education system 116–17 ICEF report 128–9 immigration 128–9 initiatives 116–23 intercultural competence 126, 606 international faculty 116f–17, 124 international Islamic universities 335 international students 44, 120t, 122–4, 126–30, 149, 150 Internationalization Policy 2011 121 Iskandar EduCity 119 Islamic Financial Education (IFE) hub 122–3, 125 knowledge generation 124–5 Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE) 130 Malaysia Plan 130 Malaysia-Indonesia-Thailand (M-I-T) Student Mobility Program 121 Malaysian Education Blueprint: Higher Education 119

INDEX

“Malaysia’s Global Reach: A New Dimension” 120–1t multiculturalism 126–7 NHESP 2007–2010 118 racism 127–8, 129 research 125 soft power 120–1 student employment 129t student mobility 121, 124 student numbers 116f, 119f, 120, 128–30 student safety 127–8, 129 study abroad 124 3+0 degree programs 117 transnational programs 117–18, 125 twinning programs 117 Western influence 124, 125–6 Xiamen University 58 Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE) 130 Malaysia-Indonesia-Thailand (M-I-T) Student Mobility Program 121 Malaysia Plan (12MP) 130 Malaysian Education Blueprint: Higher Education (MEBHE) 119 “Malaysia’s Global Reach: A New Dimension” 120–1t Malcolmson, S. 552 Malkawi, H. 333 Mamdani, M. 591 Maringe, F. 15, 53, 586, 588, 590, 592, 593 Maringe, F. and Foskett, N. 586, 594 Maringe, F. and Gibbs, P. 52 Marinono, G. and de Wit, H. 26 Marmolejo, F. 165, 286, 287, 292 Marshall, G.S. 141 Martinique 212–13 Massadeh, N. 342 massification 24–5, 67 MATRADE (Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation) 130 Maudarbekova, B. and Kashkinbayeva, Z. 112 Mbembe, A.C. 591 MCAHC (Ministers Council for Advanced Human Capital Formation) 236–7 MEBHE (Malaysian Education Blueprint: Higher Education) 119 MECESUP program 230 Mediterranean Universities Union Project 434 Meiras, S. 454 MEN and OCyT

637

Reflections on the policy of internationalization of higher education in Columbia 250 MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region 10–12, 299–300, 308–9, 443–5 see also GCC region and under individual countries Americanization 303, 444 challenges 308, 453–4 conflict 299–300, 301, 445 cooperation with Tunisia 412 criticism 301 curricula 306, 453–4 demographics 448 dropout rate 453 economy 299 education 300–1 education system 447 educational outcomes 447, 452–3 employment 308–9 employment generation 448f–9 English language programs 305–6 faculty 451 faculty mobility 304–5, 306 foreign branch campuses 303–4, 450–1 foreign language programs 305–6, 308 funding 300 globalization 444–6, 454 government policies 302–3 HEIs 301, 446–7 Human Capital Project 455 international cooperation 303–4 international faculty 451 international students 304, 451 internationalization 302–3 Islam 444, 445 literacy 300, 445 massification 444–6 modernity 454 partnership models 303 population 299 privatization 305, 445, 447, 451 quality assurance 307, 308 regional inequalities 452–3 regional integration 307–8 research 306–7, 449f–50 student mobility 304–5, 451 student numbers 300, 302, 445–6t, 447 study abroad 304, 451, 452f TNHE 303–4 tradition 444–5, 450–1, 454

638

twinning models 303 Western influence 301, 445, 451 Menelik II (king of Ethiopia) 472, 474 Mexican Agency for International Collaboration (AMEXCID) 273 Mexican Association for International Education (AMPEI) 270, 272–3, 292 Mexican Federation of Private Institutions of Higher Education (FIMPES) 268, 270 Mexico 264–5, 270–5, 281, 285 AMEXCID 273 AMPEI 270, 272–3, 292 ANUIES 270, 272, 274 CENEVAL 269 challenges 275 CIESS 268 collaborative programs 171, 272, 273, 274 CONACYT 268–9 CONAHEC 272, 273 consolidation 273–5 COPAES 268 data 276–7 diversification 272–3 dropout rate 281 Educacion Global 276 education system 265–8 expansion 272–3 faculty 282t FIMPES 268, 270 FOBESII 273–4, 285 foreign accreditation 269 foreign branch campuses 275 foreign education providers 274 funding 174, 270, 274, 281, 287 governance 269–70 government policies 173, 174, 271, 273, 276, 285 HEIs 265–8, 277 history 265 international associations/networks 171, 272, 273, 274, 292 international collaboration 289–90t international students 174 joint/dual degrees 273 language courses 277 NIEA 273 non-traditional universities 268 normalization 273–5 Padrón de Posgrado de Excelencia 268–9 Patlani 277 PROMESAN 272 PROMEXICO 273, 285

INDEX

quality assurance 268–9 ranking 291 re-engagement 275 research 165, 172, 174, 276–7, 282, 289–90t SEP 269, 270, 272 student mobility 169, 170, 273–4, 277, 285, 288t student numbers 164, 265, 268, 280t, 281 study abroad 276, 288t SUNY-COIL Centre 274 timeline of internationalization 271f–5 UNAM 265 universities 265–8 Middle East and North Africa (MENA). See MENA Middle East University 338, 341 Miller-Idriss, C. and Hanauer, E. 303. 449, 451 Ministers Council for Advanced Human Capital Formation (MCAHC) 236–7 Ministry of Education (MoE). See MoE Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MoHESR) 385, 386, 387, 393–5 MoE (Ministry of Education) Advice on Introducing Overseas talent, The 50 “Implementation Measures of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools” 50 “Notice on Internationalizing Social Science in Chinese Universities” 59 “Notice on Reviewing Transnational Cooperation Programs and Institutions” 51 “Outline of National Medium and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Planning” 51 “Regulation on Foreign Students in Chinese Universities” 55 Mohamed, Sidi Mahmoud Ould 371 Mohammad Ali (pasha of Egypt) 384, 388 Mohammed IV (king of Morocco) 367–8 MoHESR (Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research) 385, 386, 387, 393–5 Moi University 557, 559 Morocco 302, 364–5, 377–80 arts and humanities 376–7 citizenship 374–5

INDEX

class bias 375 cultural diversity 366–7 dropout rate 453 economic/social challenges 374–5 education history 367–8 education systems 377–8 employment 448 English language programs 305–6, 373–4 ethnic diversity 366 faculty 370 family 375, 378 funding 370, 371, 372 future, the 376–7 government policies 367–70, 378–80 HEIs 367–8 international partnership schemes 304 international universities 368–70, 376, 378–80 ISIAM 369 Islam 367 Karaouine University 370 linguistic diversity 366, 367 literacy 370 national identity 377, 378 political setting 365–6 political tension 375–6 private universities 367, 368–9 privatization 305 reform 365 research 371–3, 380 student mobility 304 student numbers 369, 370 study abroad 304 technology 369–70 tradition 376, 378, 379 UIR 369 vocational training 367–8 women 366 Mu’ata University 334 Multimedia University 561t NAB (National Accreditation Board) 536 NACAI (Network of ASEAN-China Academic Institutes) 153 NAFSA (Association of International Educators) 191 NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) 272 Nakasone Plan 68 National Accreditation Board (NAB) 536 National Accreditation Commission (CNA) 231–2t

639

National Association of Universities (ANUIES) 270, 272, 274 National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) 265 National Centre for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility (NCBPAM) 103 see also Bologna Process National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) 230–1t National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) 536 National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) 268–9 National Evaluation, Quality Assurance and Accreditation Authority (NEQAAA) 411 National Higher Education Evaluation Centre (CENEVAL) 269 National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP) 2007–2010 118 national identity 11–12, 376, 378 National Innovation Council 234 National Qualifications Framework (NQF) 427 National research Foundation (NRF) of Korea 96 National Strategy for the Higher Education and Scientific Research Sector for the Years 2007–2012 333 National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Policies (NTEISPs). See NTEISPs nationalism 327, 553 Nazarbayev University (NU) 108–10 NCBPAM (National Centre for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility) 103 NCTE (National Council for Tertiary Education) 536 Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. 598 colonialism 511 decoloniality 15, 586, 588, 590, 598, 608 modernity 544 Nelson Mandela Bay Global Dialogue Declaration on the Future of Internationalization of Higher Education 191 Nepal 140 NEQAAA (National Evaluation, Quality Assurance and Accreditation Authority) 411 Network of ASEAN-China Academic Institutes (NACAI) 153

640

Network of International Education Associations (NIEA) 191, 273 New Higher Education Policy Reform (NHEP) 2008–2012 354–5 NHEP (New Higher Education Policy Reform) 2008–2012 354–5 NHESP (National Higher Education Strategic Plan) 2007–2010 118 NIEA (Network of International Education Associations) 191, 273 Nigeria 589, 591 access 579 admission process 580 agricultural research 581–2 challenges 578–82 colonialism 571–2, 592 demand 574, 579 faculty 579–80 Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta 576 funding 579–80, 581 future, the 582–3 government policies 572, 578, 591, 604 HEIs 572t, 574–5 higher education 571–3 IaH 578 IHE 573–7, 582–3 IHE strategies 574–5 imperatives 577–8 international collaboration 575, 576 international faculty 573–4, 575, 576, 589 international students 573–4, 575, 576, 580, 589 localization 573–4 policies and initiatives 577, 578 research 579–82 strategies 582–3 study abroad 579 universities 571–2 University of Ibadan 575–6 University of Ilorin 575 University of Lagos 576–7 unstable academic calendar 578–9 1985 Decision (Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party of China on the Reform of the Educational System [CCP]) 48–9 Nilsson, B. 357 non-Western contexts 4–5 North Africa and the Middle East See MENA North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 272

INDEX

North American Student Mobility Program (PROMESAN) 272 “Notice on Internationalizing Social Science in Chinese Universities” (MoE) 59 “Notice on Reviewing Transnational Cooperation Programs and Institutions” (MoE) 51 NQF (National Qualifications Framework) 427 NRF (National research Foundation) of Korea 96 NTEISPs (National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Policies) 4, 599, 600t–3t, 608 China 50–2 differences in 32 effectiveness 33 geographic focus 32, 36 government involvement 32, 33 history 32 Japan 68–74 literature review 30–3 mapping exercise 33–6 recommendations for 36–7 stakeholders 32 tactical focus 33 NU (Nazarbayev University) 108–10 Nyerere, J. 586 Oanda, I.O. 604 Obiora, S.F. 576, 577 OBIRET (Observatory on Internationalization and Networks) “Regional Survey on Internationalization Trends in LAC” 166–7, 173, 176–7, 201–9, 286 Ochilov, A. 136 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) 87 Olson, C.L., Green, F.M., and Barbara, A.H. 510, 515 Olukoshi, A. and Zeleza, P.T. 585, 586 Oman see also GCC region funding 313 international partnerships 303, 316 privatization 317 research 306, 319 Omirgazy, D. 106 Omotosho, A.O. 575 OPEC (Organization of Oil producing economies) 443 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 87

INDEX

Organization of Oil producing economies (OPEC) 443 Otálora, J.A.R. 249 “Outline of National Medium and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Planning” (MoE) 51 Oyewole, O.B. 576, 604 Padrón de Posgrado de Excelencia 268–9 Palestine 301, 302, 424, 452 barriers 439–40 EFQM 430–1, 434–8 employment 448 European Commission projects 432–3t faculty 437t, 438t funding 425–5, 433, 434, 440 Funding Scholarship project 433 governance 425–6, 432 government policies 425–6, 435t–7t, 441 HEIs 425–6 higher education system 425–7 human rights 439 IHE 428–9, 430–1, 438t Improving Governance Practices project 432 international cooperation 434, 440 international faculty 439, 440 international students 439, 441 internationalization evaluation 434–8 Israel 427, 431, 439–40 joint master’s and PhD programs 434 joint programs 431–2, 434 language barriers 440 leadership 435t Mediterranean Universities Union Project 434 NQF 427 partnerships 438t people 437t, 438t policies/strategies 436t–7t, 441 population growth 452 privatization 426–7 processes 438t quality management 430–1, 441 research 432–4 research methodology 429–30 student mobility 439, 441 student numbers 427–8f study abroad 439 Tempus program 432 universities 427–8, 431 Palestine Council of Higher Education 427 Pan-African University Institute 561t

641

Park Chung Hee (president of South Korea) 84 Patlani 277 P˘aunic˘a, M., Matac, M.L., Motofei, C., and Manole, A. 136 Peace Corps Program 479 PEC-G (Exchange Program for Undergraduate Students) 185 PEC-PG (Exchange Program for Postgraduate Students) 185 Peking University 42, 58, 59 Peru 170, 171 Petra University 334 Philadelphia University 334, 339, 340, 341 Philippines 154 Pietsch, T. “Imperial Echoes” 552 Pilkington, M. 136 Pipia, E. 350t Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (PUC) 240, 241 power 27 Princess Sumayya University for Science and Technology (PSUST) 335, 336, 339, 340 privatization Bahrain 321 Brazil 182–3 Chile 221, 280 Egypt 305, 388–9 Ethiopia 473 GCC region 318, 320–1 Japan 44, 65, 71 Jordan 305, 341–2, 447 Kenya 565 Korea 44, 83 Libya 305, 355–6 MENA region 305, 445, 447, 451 Morocco 305, 367, 368–9 Oman 317 Palestine 426–7 Tunisia 305 UAE 305, 447 PROBRAL program 186 Programme for International Student Assessment 252 n2 Prohaska, T., Anderson, L., and Binstock, R. 257 Project Atlas initiative 192 Project 211 54–6 Project 985 54–6 PROMESAN (North American Student Mobility Program) 272

642

PROMEXICO 273, 285 PROUNI (University for All Program) 183 PSUST (Princess Sumayya University for Science and Technology) 335, 336, 339, 340 PUC (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile) 240, 241 Puerto Rico 202t, 207, 215 Qassem, A. 371, 372 Qatar 303 see also GCC region Arabic 308 Education City 316 expatriates 321 foreign branch campuses 316, 451 funding 313 research 319 study abroad 317t wealth 312, 451 Qatar Foundation 316 quality assurance Chile 220–1t, 231–2t, 234–5 Colombia 250, 252 Egypt 386 Ethiopia 486 GCC region 319–20, 321–2 Ghana 536 LAC 167–8 Libya 307 Malaysia 121 Mexico 268–9 Palestine 430–1, 441 Tunisia 307, 411 Rabat International University (UIR) 369 racism 127–8, 129 America 496 apartheid 493–4, 495, 496, 497, 591 Rajawet, A. and Kishnan, M. 429 RANA (Red de Agencias Nacionales de Acreditación) 232t ranking 15, 24–5, 42, 541 Australia 154 Brazil 184–5, 291 Caribbean, the 208, 291 Chile 223t–4, 238, 291 China 42, 54 Colombia 291 Egypt 385 Japan 68, 69f, 70–1, 74 Joongang Ilbo rankings 89 Kazakhstan 112

INDEX

Korea 89, 90–1, 97 LAC 291 MENA region 307, 308 Mexico 291 RAUI (Red de Administradores de Universidades Iberoamericanas) 232t Razak, D.A. 511 RCI (Red Colombiana para la Internacionalización) 249 Red Colombiana para la Internacionalización (RCI) 249 Red de Administradores de Universidades Iberoamericanas (RAUI) 232t Red de Agencias Nacionales de Acreditación (RANA) 232t Red Iberoamericana para la acreditación de la calidad de la Educación Superior (RIACES) 232t Reflections on the policy of internationalization of higher education in Columbia (MEN and OCyT) 250 “Regional Survey on Internationalization Trends in LAC” (OBIRET) 166–7, 173, 176–7, 201–9, 286 regionalism 150–4 regionalization 342 “Regulation on Foreign Students in Chinese Universities” (MoE) 55 “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools (State Council) 50 “Report of Internationalization of Higher Education in China” (China Education Association for International Exchange) 54f research 58–9, 149, 174, 329, 371, 532–3 Arab countries 372–3 Brazil 165, 172, 174, 184, 282, 289, 290t Caribbean, the 206, 209, 212, 213, 289, 290t Chile 165, 172, 174, 221, 226–9f, 238, 239t, 241, 282, 289, 290t China 44, 59–60, 319 Colombia 174, 259, 282, 284, 289–90t Dominican Republic 290t Egypt 307, 398 Ethiopia 481, 484–5 GCC region 306, 319, 321 Ghana 541, 545–6 H2020 417 India 319 Japan 65, 70–1, 74, 75

INDEX

Jordan 306, 307, 339 Kazakhstan 111, 112 Kenya 557, 559–64t Korea 89, 94–6 LAC 165, 172–3, 174, 282, 289–90t, 292, 293–4 library-based 429–30 Malaysia 125 MENA region 306–7, 449f–50 Mexico 165, 172, 174, 276–7, 282, 289–90t Morocco 371–3, 380 Nigeria 579–82 Oman 306, 319 Palestine 432–4 Qatar 319 Saudi Arabia 306, 307, 319, 321, 450 South Africa 498 SSA 533, 554, 581 Tunisia 307, 414–17, 419 UAE 306, 319 Restrepo, J.C. 247 Rhee, Syngman (president of South Korea) 84 RIACES (Red Iberoamericana para la acreditación de la calidad de la Educación Superior) 232t Ruby, A. 304, 307 Russia 328 Salmi, Jamil 108, 109 Saudi Arabia see also GCC region employment 448 funding 313 “Global Research Partnership” 307 HEIs 446 international partnerships 303, 316, 317 research 306, 307, 319, 321, 450 study abroad 304, 317t Say’s Law of Human Resources 96 Scholte, J. 352 Schulte, B. 136 Science without Borders (SwB) program 185, 186–8, 221, 283–4 SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) 396 SDS (Egypt Sustainable Development Strategy) 2030 Vision 386–7, 396, 398 SDSN (Sustainable Development Solutions Network) 256 Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP) 269, 270, 272 Sehoole, C. 495, 498

643

Sehoole, C., Adeyemo, K.S., Phatland, R., and Ojo, E. 498, 499 SEP (Secretaría de Educación Pública) 269, 270, 272 Shahbaz, M., Mallick, H., Mahalik, M.K., and Hammoudeh, S. 352 Shutina, R. 245, 249, 255 SIACES (Sistema iberoamericano de aseguramiento de la calidad de la educación superior) 232t Singapore 138, 149, 154 Singh, J.K.N., Schapper, J., and Mayson, S. 125 sino-foreign cooperation programs 56, 57 sino-foreign cooperation secondary/ subordinate (erji) colleges 56, 57 sino-foreign cooperation universities 57–8 Sistema iberoamericano de aseguramiento de la calidad de la educación superior (SIACES) 232t Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. 141 SLEIDSE (“Support to Libya for Economic Integration, Diversification and Sustainable Employment”) 356 social development Colombia 245–6, 247–8, 252, 254–5, 256–9 definition 263 social engagement 257–8 social media 445 Sol International School 92 South Africa 5, 493, 589, 591, 599 apartheid 493–4, 495, 496, 497, 591 collaboration schemes 497–8 colonialism 493, 495 employment 503 faculty mobility 498–500 funding 503–4 higher education history 494–5 immigration 499 international faculty 497, 498–9 international students 497, 500t–7, 589 research 498 SADC region students 497, 502t–4, 505, 507 student mobility 496, 497, 500t–7 study abroad 496 trade 498, 501 universities 496, 498 South African College 495 South Korea. See Korea Southeast Asia 148–55

644

Soviet influence 41–2, 101, 474–5 Spain 412, 431 Spanish Caribbean 213–15 SSA (Sub-Saharan Africa) 12–16, 461–2t, 550–4, 585–95, 597–8 see also under individual countries brain drain 464, 590 challenges 533–4 colonialism/coloniality 462–3t, 464, 552, 590 cooperation with Tunisia 413–14 decoloniality 464, 534, 587, 590, 607 foreign branch campuses 553–4 funding 463, 533 HEIs 463t, 554 higher education 462–4 IHE 464–5, 552, 554 inter-regional partnerships 464 international students 553 intra-regional partnerships 464 issues 585, 587–90 “Look North” approach 590, 591 policies/strategies 465, 587–90 research 533, 554, 581 student mobility 553, 589–90 study abroad 464, 553 tensions 590–3 TNHE 553–4 vertical approach 588, 591, 594, 598, 608 SSSAP (Chinese State-Sponsored Study Abroad Program) 236 State Council “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools” 50 Steed, C. 430 “Strategic Plan Document 2015–2018, The” 334 student employment 129t student mobility 31, 36, 247, 328, 357, 532, 605 Argentina 170 Brazil 170, 185, 186–8, 191–3, 283–4, 288t–9 Caribbean, the 170, 207–8, 213, 214, 289 Chile 170, 224f–6, 288t, 289 China 58 Colombia 170, 250, 284, 285, 288t Dominican Republic 170, 288t Egypt 304, 387, 389–93 Ethiopia 474–8 GCC region 317t–18

INDEX

Ghana 539–40 India 138, 140–41f Jordan 304, 336t–7t Kazakhstan 103, 105–6, 112–13 Kenya 556–7 Korea 88, 89–90, 97 LAC 169–70, 287–9, 292 Libya 357–9 Malaysia 121, 124 MENA region 304–5, 451 Mexico 169, 170, 273–4, 277, 285, 288t Morocco 304 Palestine 439, 441 South Africa 496, 497, 500t–7 SSA 553, 589–90 Tunisia 304, 406–7, 408, 413, 419 student numbers Argentina 164 Brazil 183, 280t Chile 164, 220, 222–3, 235, 280t China 42, 149 Colombia 252, 253, 259, 280t, 281 Egypt 385, 386 Ethiopia 473 GCC region 313–14f India 137f–8, 140 Kenya 555 Korea 83t, 85, 86, 88, 90–1t, 94 LAC 164–5, 280t Libya 355 Malaysia 116f, 119f, 120, 128–30 MENA region 300, 302, 445–6t, 447 Mexico 164, 265, 268, 280t, 281 Morocco 369, 370 Palestine 427–8f Tunisia 404 Uruguay 164 Zimbabwe 512 study abroad (outbound students) Brazil 193, 288t–9 Caribbean, the 207, 289 Chile 221, 232–8, 289 China 236 Egypt 304, 388, 391–3 Ethiopia 474–6, 589 GCC region 313, 317t Ghana 540, 545 India 140 Jordan 304, 337 Kazakhstan 103, 108, 109 Kenya 553 Korea 85–6, 87, 89–90, 97

INDEX

Kuwait 317t LAC 169, 170, 172–3, 287–9 Libya 357–9 Malaysia 124 MENA region 304, 451, 452f Mexico 276, 288t Morocco 304 Nigeria 579 Palestine 439 Qatar 317t Saudi Arabia 304, 317t South Africa 496 SSA 464, 553 Tunisia 304, 406–7, 408, 413 UAE 317t–18 Zimbabwe 513, 514, 519–20 Stukilana, Y. 136 Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). See SSA Sudan 480 Suh Nam Pyo 95 SUNY-COIL Centre 274 SUNY Korea 93 “Support to Libya for Economic Integration, Diversification and Sustainable Employment” (SLEIDSE) 356 Suriname 202t sustainable development 209, 211–12, 256, 263, 553 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 396 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) 256 Suzhou University 58 Swanson, D. 127 SwB (Science without Borders) program 185, 186–8, 221, 283–4 Swystun, J. 255 Taihoku Imperial University 67 Taiwan 67, 138 Tamrat, W. 599 Tamrat, W. and Teferra, D. 356, 476 Tari, J. 431 Tayya, Alaqa 478 TBS (Tunis Business School) 410 technology 248, 257, 352–3, 415, 607–8 see also ICT Teferra, D. 13, 573 Teferra, D. and Altbach, P.G. 533 Tempus program 409, 411, 418, 427, 432 The UWI (University of the West Indies) 211 Thondhlana, J. 592

645

Thondhlana, J., Abdulrahman, H., Garwe, E.C., and McGrath, S. 511, 591 Tikly, L. 593 Times Higher Education 15 TNHE (transnational higher education) see also international collaboration/ cooperation China 50–1f, 56–8 Egypt 388, 389 Ethiopia 485–6 GCC region 315 Japan 70 Malaysia 117–18 MENA region 303 SSA 553–4 Todaro, M.P. and Smith, S.C. 6 Tongji University 58 Trahar, S. 4–5 transnational higher education (TNHE). See TNHE trends 29–30 Trines, S. 475 Trinidad Tobago 202t, 290t Tsingha University 59 Tunis Business School (TBS) 410 Tunisia 302, 304, 403–4, 445 capacity building projects 408–9f cooperation with African countries 413 cooperation with America 413 cooperation with Arab countries 412 cooperation with Asian countries 414 cooperation with Canada 413 cooperation with Europe 412–13 cooperation with Spain 413 dropout rate 453 E-Science, Réseau Maghrébin de Labouratoires à distance (E-Science, Maghreb Network of remote labs) 418 employment 448 English language programs 305–6, 410 EOLES 418 Erasmus+ program 408–9f, 411 faculty mobility 305, 407–8, 414 funding 406–7, 408, 416, 417 future, the 418–19 governance 405–6, 411 government policies/strategies 404–5, 411, 415, 419 H2020 417 HEIs 404, 446–7 High School of Aeronautics and Technologies 410

646

higher education system 404–6 ICT 417–18 IHE 406–10 international cooperation 411–14, 417–18 international faculty 407–8 international partnership schemes 304, 406–7, 410 international students 413 joint PhD supervision 406–7 NEQAAA 411 privatization 305 quality assurance 307, 411 reform 404–5, 415, 454 remote labs 418 research 307, 414–17, 419 research projects 416t–17 student mobility 304, 406–7, 408, 413, 419 student numbers 404 study abroad 304, 406–7, 408, 413 technology 415 Tempus program 409, 411, 418 three-cycle system 404 UC 405–6 videoconferencing 417 Virtual University 417 Western influence 445 “Tunisian University between Localism and Internationalism, The” (Dhaher, N.) 403 12MP (Malaysia Plan) 130 2030 Agenda 197, 200 2003 Regulation 50 2004 Implementation 50 2004 Notice 51 UAE (United Arab Emirates) 316, 453 see also GCC region Academic City 316 Arabic 308 Dubai Knowledge Village 316 employment 448 expatriates 321 foreign branch campuses 303, 316, 451 funding 313 HEIs 446 international students 317t–18 privatization 305, 447 research 306, 319 study abroad 317t–18 wealth 312, 451

INDEX

UC (Universities Caribbean) 211 UC (Universities Council) 405–6 UCAA (University College of Addis Ababa) 472, 474, 475, 479 UCRN (University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland) 513 UIR (Rabat International University) 369 UN (United Nations) 396 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 396 UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico) 265 UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC) 200 Observatory on Internationalization and Networks (OBIRET). See OBIRET Regional Conference 2018 165 Regional Conference on Higher Education (CRES) 175 UNESCO-IESALC (International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean) 200 3rd General Conference on Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean (CRES 2018) 200 UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) 477 UNIBRAL 186 UNISA (University of South Africa) 486, 503 United Arab Emirates (UAE). See UAE United Nations (UN). See UN United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 477 United Nationals Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) 330 Universa 238 universities 141 see also HEIs and under individual names China 57–8, 59 Universities Caribbean (UC) 211 Universities Council (UC) 405–6 Universities UK 556 University A. “Criteria in Faculty Evaluation” 59 University College of Addis Ababa (UCAA) 472, 474, 475, 479 University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (UCRN) 513 University College, Ibadan 571, 575–6 University for All Program (PROUNI) 183

INDEX

University of Agadir 369 University of Chile 240, 241 University of Concepción 240–1 University of Guyana 212 University of Ibadan 571, 575–6 University of Ilorin 575 University of Jordan (UoJ) 335, 340, 341 University of Lagos 576–7 University of Nairobi 556–7, 560–1t, 562, 563t, 566, 567 University of Nottingham 515–16, 525 University of Nottingham Ningbo 57 University of Pretoria 498 University of Puerto Rico 207 University of South Africa (UNISA) 486, 503 University of Suriname 212 University of the West Indies (The UWI) 211 University of Witwatersrand 498 University of Zimbabwe (UZ) 513 University of Zitouna 445 UNRWA (United Nationals Relief and Works Agency) 330 UoJ (University of Jordan) 335, 340, 341 Uribe, J. 249 Uruguay 164 Uruguay Round 87 US. See America UZ (University of Zimbabwe) 513 Van der Wende, M. 23, 24, 245, 356 Vardhan, J. 304, 308 Veblen, Thorstein Higher Learning in America, The 141 Viet Nam 148–9 Villavicencio, M. and Montero, A. 214 Virtual University of Tunis 417 Vujicˇic´, M. and Ristic´, L. 136 wakon-kansai (“Japanese spirit, Chinese learning”) 155 wakon yosai (“Japanese spirit, Western Learning”) 155 Wan, C. 136 Warwick, P. and Morgan, Y.J. 3 WCU (World Class University) program 94–6 Welch, A. 248, 597 Western influence 7, 23–4, 66, 141, 143, 588 Asia Pacific 41 breaking 36 China 138, 155 East and Southeast Asia 149, 155 Ethiopia 472, 474, 478, 483

647

GCC region 313 Ghana 541 India 138, 141 Japan 66, 67, 155 Malaysia 124, 125–6 Malaysia 124, 125–6 MENA region 301, 445, 451 Tunisia 445 Woldegiyorgis, A.A., Proctor, D., and de Wit, H. 58–9, 60 Woosong University 93 Work, E. 483 World Bank 541–2 World Bank reports 9, 166, 453 World Class University (WCU) program 94–6 world systems theory 593 World Trade Organisation (WTO) 87 Xiamen University 58, 151 Yaba Technical College 571 Yanbian University of Science and Technology 57 Yarmouk University (YU) 335, 337, 338, 339, 340–1, 342 Yash Pal Committee Report on Higher Education 257 Yemen 453 Yemini, M. 439 Yigezu, M. 476 Yizengaw, T. 484 Yonsei University 92–3 YU (Yarmouk University) 335, 337, 338, 339, 340–1, 342 Zeleza, P.T. 511, 586, 590 Zhang Zhidong 155 Zhejiang University 42, 149 Zhong, Y. 49 zhongxue wei ti, xi xue wei yong (Chinese Learning as Substance, Western Learning for Practical Use”) 155 Zicman, R. 283, 286, 287, 292 Zimbabwe 511–12, 589, 591, 592 brain drain 520 curricula 518t decoloniality 589, 592, 607 faculty mobility 512–13, 516–17t, 518t, 520 funding 513, 515, 522–3, 525 government policies 514–16, 519–20, 592 HEI heads workshop 520–3f

648

HEIs 512, 516–18, 520–3, 525 higher education system 512–13 IHE historical background 513–14 IHE historical perspective 513–14 IHE outcomes 518–19 IHE policy development 514–24 IHE TOC 520–3 international partnerships 515–16, 517t, 518t international students 513–14, 517t, 518, 519 literacy 512 “look east policy” 514, 589 methodology 516

INDEX

scoping study 516–23 student numbers 512 study abroad 513, 514, 519–20 taskforce workshops 523–4f UCRN 513 University of Nottingham 515–16, 524 UZ 513 ZIMCHE 514–16, 524, 592, 604 ZIMCHE IHE seminar 519–20 Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education (ZIMCHE) 514–15, 519–20, 525, 604 ZIMCHE (Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education) 514–15, 519–20, 525, 604

649

650